- Mobile site
- E-Newsletters
-
- News feed
- Find us on Twitter
@Essex_Echo
Follow us
- Find us on Facebook
Echo
Like us on Facebook
LIVE: Havens Hospice plan is kicked out (From Echo)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting ECHONEWS to 80360, or email us »
LIVE: Havens Hospice plan is kicked out
1:15pm Wednesday 17th October 2012 in News
LIVE: Haven Hospice decision
PLANS for Havens Hospice’s new facility on green belt near Leigh were kicked out.
Southend Council’s development control committee said the charity cannot build a new £15 million hospice off Belton Way West.
The hospice’s three-year battle to build a new 16-bed facility on the Salvation Army land has divided residents, with supporters pointing to the charity’s exemplary track record, but campaigners argue the countryside should be preserved at all costs.
Planning officers recommended the proposal be turned down, saying the charity has ruled out alternative sites without due consideration.
See live tweets here and join in the debate using #havenshospice
LIVE: Havens Hospice
Echo has no responsibility or control over the content on external blogging sites, but you can contact us if you have a complaint.
Comments(85)
GentleGiant
says...
3:10pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Well done to those who voted against this blight on green belt land.
Little havens are not above the law.
Happy days :)
Little havens are not above the law.
Happy days :)
MickyLeigh
says...
3:26pm Wed 17 Oct 12
I am very pleased, but also disturbed. I understand the argument for and against but I simply because I believe that this precious greenbelt should remain untouched also means, according to those for the development, I do not care about dying people. This is very insulting. Please make your case in a mature manor instead of this ridiculous emotive language.
heartbeat
says...
3:48pm Wed 17 Oct 12
MickyLeigh wrote:Absolutely. How ridiculous to try and make out that "not wanting a hospice to be built on green belt land in an incredibly built up borough" means the same as "not wanting a hospice".
I am very pleased, but also disturbed. I understand the argument for and against but I simply because I believe that this precious greenbelt should remain untouched also means, according to those for the development, I do not care about dying people. This is very insulting. Please make your case in a mature manor instead of this ridiculous emotive language.
Obviously we are all on the same page when it comes to wanting a hospice where our loved ones and maybe ourselves are well-looked after in comfortable, pleasant surroundings. But it is NOT necessary to build a hospice on greenbelt land to achieve this!!!
Havens - please look again at Esplanande House...win back the thousands of supporters who now do not trust the way Havens is run and do us all a favour. Maybe Havens could try to negotiate on the cost of building there, seeing as it is such a dreadful eyesore and would improve the town's image dramatically if it was demolished and rebuilt with an attractive landscaped building.
mys842
says...
3:48pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Just a bunch of LoS NIMBYs not wanting something built on their doorstep. Green belt is just a cover; I wonder if there would be so much coverage or opposition from people if the planned development was on the green belt in Shoebury or elsewhere in the borough!
APR
says...
4:10pm Wed 17 Oct 12
GentleGiant wrote:Nothing to do with Little Havens.
Well done to those who voted against this blight on green belt land.
Little havens are not above the law.
Happy days :)
I'm sure there are other places this could be built, which have good transport links.
grippie
says...
4:10pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Whilst I was very ill, I was left with my dying father. A nurse who daily came in to give him his medication contacted Fairhavens who immediately took him in until we found a suitable home for him. Marvellous.
I feel their plans for the new hospice were a bit too ambitious, but obviously I wish them all the best in finding a suitable site for all their good work.. They are there to help and assist the terminally sick local population and I wish them all the best in their endeavours .
I feel their plans for the new hospice were a bit too ambitious, but obviously I wish them all the best in finding a suitable site for all their good work.. They are there to help and assist the terminally sick local population and I wish them all the best in their endeavours .
HK9597
says...
4:20pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Nimby is an overused phrase and would only be applicable if there wasn't an alternative location.
The question is whether there are any suitable and available 'brown' locations in the district.
Empty buildings on Victoria Avenue, close to two train stations, enough space to put decent car parking, good road access etc.
They could build an enclosed courtyard garden for very little cost. Much better views than they would have in Leigh. Cheap to purchase and develop.
Take emotion out of it and look for a win win.
Appealing is a waste of time and money.
I donate to Havens, have seen the care they provide when a loved one is terminally ill (not Havens but a similar care provider in Hampshire) and
live miles away from the proposed site.
The question is whether there are any suitable and available 'brown' locations in the district.
Empty buildings on Victoria Avenue, close to two train stations, enough space to put decent car parking, good road access etc.
They could build an enclosed courtyard garden for very little cost. Much better views than they would have in Leigh. Cheap to purchase and develop.
Take emotion out of it and look for a win win.
Appealing is a waste of time and money.
I donate to Havens, have seen the care they provide when a loved one is terminally ill (not Havens but a similar care provider in Hampshire) and
live miles away from the proposed site.
Alan Robbo
says...
4:37pm Wed 17 Oct 12
By voting NO to the building on Green belt land by a majority of the Council members, they have for filled their civic duty. As a donor to Havens Hospices I still give my 100% support, and wish them luck in the next step to a new hospice in Southend.
Liv.Springate
says...
5:40pm Wed 17 Oct 12
The council members rejected the proposal on the grounds that it did not meet the criteria for building on greenbelt land...
Places that do meet the criteria are:
- AFFORDABLE CHEAP HOUSING
- SPORTS CENTRES
The council will find it extremely difficult to reject these places because they meet criteria. By having some back bone and accepting the proposal today, council members had a chance to give something worthwhile to the existing community... but instead we can look forward to more cheap housing, an increase in population and no hospice care for anyone.
Thanks a lot 'council of the year'.
Places that do meet the criteria are:
- AFFORDABLE CHEAP HOUSING
- SPORTS CENTRES
The council will find it extremely difficult to reject these places because they meet criteria. By having some back bone and accepting the proposal today, council members had a chance to give something worthwhile to the existing community... but instead we can look forward to more cheap housing, an increase in population and no hospice care for anyone.
Thanks a lot 'council of the year'.
fletch12107
says...
5:43pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Looks like all the sheep have voted the way they were told by their leader.
v.randy
says...
6:06pm Wed 17 Oct 12
At least it's over now ,perhaps this will create some space for more pressing issues.
andy:)
says...
7:38pm Wed 17 Oct 12
heartbeat wrote:Exactly. This type of emotional blackmail was exactly the type of language that havens promised not to use, and to be fair, they mostly havnt..BUT 'supporters' on here and elsewhere have been quick to use such arguments, 'how would you like it if your father was dying of cancer', etc..this type of language does them and havens no favours at all.
MickyLeigh wrote:Absolutely. How ridiculous to try and make out that "not wanting a hospice to be built on green belt land in an incredibly built up borough" means the same as "not wanting a hospice".
I am very pleased, but also disturbed. I understand the argument for and against but I simply because I believe that this precious greenbelt should remain untouched also means, according to those for the development, I do not care about dying people. This is very insulting. Please make your case in a mature manor instead of this ridiculous emotive language.
Obviously we are all on the same page when it comes to wanting a hospice where our loved ones and maybe ourselves are well-looked after in comfortable, pleasant surroundings. But it is NOT necessary to build a hospice on greenbelt land to achieve this!!!
Havens - please look again at Esplanande House...win back the thousands of supporters who now do not trust the way Havens is run and do us all a favour. Maybe Havens could try to negotiate on the cost of building there, seeing as it is such a dreadful eyesore and would improve the town's image dramatically if it was demolished and rebuilt with an attractive landscaped building.
As Southenmd Council have made clear, there must be VERY special circumstances to allow building on green belt, simply claiming that there are no other sites is simply not good enough, now Havens instead of wasting more money on further appeals and losing more support, please think again, re-viist the other sites and perhaps change your criteria. Im sure there must be many other perfect locations in the local area.
perini
says...
10:01pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Excellent news!
barneldu
says...
10:58pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Is saddened that Southend Council are so short sighted that they have to follow Nigel Holdcroft and again reject Havens application to build the new hospice. What hold does that man have over them? Isn't he content by bleating to the local paper last night about how Havens have lost their supporters by trying to build on green belt. Doesn't he know it is wrong to try and sway the vote before the application is heard before committee. I hope the man is sacked, he is a disgrace to his profession and this town. I would also like to point out that the Council passed permission for the new football stadium to be built on green belt. SInce when has a game of football been more important to those in need of solace.? Oh sorry, I forgot that the dead and dying do nothing for the so called image of the town.
Elephantman2
says...
7:29am Thu 18 Oct 12
Q: What has the work of this charity got do with them wishing to build on green built?
A: Nothing!
Green belt is green belt and we should defend it from any organisation who feels they have a right to run roughshod over the planning laws. That is the most galling thing about this applications by Havens; they are using the fact that they look after the terminally ill as a tool to convince people that the planning laws should be ignored because their work is special.
A: Nothing!
Green belt is green belt and we should defend it from any organisation who feels they have a right to run roughshod over the planning laws. That is the most galling thing about this applications by Havens; they are using the fact that they look after the terminally ill as a tool to convince people that the planning laws should be ignored because their work is special.
Brunning999
says...
7:52am Thu 18 Oct 12
Two choices now left:
1. appeal and leave it in the hands of god who will make the right decision about his chosen land.
2. Let those nose led politicians help find a much needed suitable site for a much needed site.
Hopefully Southend Borough will now use the Special permission status of allowing green belt development to build Low cost housing that without doubt is much needed in Southend and it will help to keep the cost of housing in that area down to a sensible level comparable to Kings Road and Hamlet Court Road area in Westcliff.
Bring it on! 100 council houses which will/must be allowed on the same sight.
1. appeal and leave it in the hands of god who will make the right decision about his chosen land.
2. Let those nose led politicians help find a much needed suitable site for a much needed site.
Hopefully Southend Borough will now use the Special permission status of allowing green belt development to build Low cost housing that without doubt is much needed in Southend and it will help to keep the cost of housing in that area down to a sensible level comparable to Kings Road and Hamlet Court Road area in Westcliff.
Bring it on! 100 council houses which will/must be allowed on the same sight.
Brunning999
says...
7:57am Thu 18 Oct 12
fletch12107 wrote:A Very important point to make which is oh so true and extremely worrying.
Looks like all the sheep have voted the way they were told by their leader.
If the same sheep like following is used when a Tory or Labour Police selected Commissioner is elected we will have a Police Controlled State.
Either do not vote or vote only for independent candidates.
Politicians cannot be trusted where party whips are really in control.
j-w
says...
8:52am Thu 18 Oct 12
As stated before the sixteen member planning committee is actually a minority of tory councilors, there are more independants, labour and lib dems on the commitee.
As for "allowing" things to be built on green belt at Fossetts Farm, Fossetts Farm had its green belt status changed as a result of legal action in the High court by developers who were against the Council long term Planning strategy.
pdf here http://tinyurl.com/d
y4qrxe
As for "allowing" things to be built on green belt at Fossetts Farm, Fossetts Farm had its green belt status changed as a result of legal action in the High court by developers who were against the Council long term Planning strategy.
pdf here http://tinyurl.com/d
y4qrxe
barneldu
says...
9:28am Thu 18 Oct 12
Elephantman2 wrote:God how short sighted some people are. Why don't you try and see this from somebody else's point of view? This has nothing to do with Havens riding roughshod over planning laws. It has to do with Havens wanting to supply the best palliative care that it can. As has been mentioned several times, the site they wish to build on is the best from all aspects but primarily because it has local transport links in buses and trains. Not everyone is lucky enough to have a car and the hospice must be built where it is easily accessible.
Q: What has the work of this charity got do with them wishing to build on green built?
A: Nothing!
Green belt is green belt and we should defend it from any organisation who feels they have a right to run roughshod over the planning laws. That is the most galling thing about this applications by Havens; they are using the fact that they look after the terminally ill as a tool to convince people that the planning laws should be ignored because their work is special.
notinwestcliffanymore
says...
10:05am Thu 18 Oct 12
barneldu wrote:As does victoria ave, but also an abundance of buildable land.
Elephantman2 wrote: Q: What has the work of this charity got do with them wishing to build on green built? A: Nothing! Green belt is green belt and we should defend it from any organisation who feels they have a right to run roughshod over the planning laws. That is the most galling thing about this applications by Havens; they are using the fact that they look after the terminally ill as a tool to convince people that the planning laws should be ignored because their work is special.God how short sighted some people are. Why don't you try and see this from somebody else's point of view? This has nothing to do with Havens riding roughshod over planning laws. It has to do with Havens wanting to supply the best palliative care that it can. As has been mentioned several times, the site they wish to build on is the best from all aspects but primarily because it has local transport links in buses and trains. Not everyone is lucky enough to have a car and the hospice must be built where it is easily accessible.
GentleGiant
says...
10:30am Thu 18 Oct 12
barneldu wrote:No - havens think they are above the law!
Elephantman2 wrote:God how short sighted some people are. Why don't you try and see this from somebody else's point of view? This has nothing to do with Havens riding roughshod over planning laws. It has to do with Havens wanting to supply the best palliative care that it can. As has been mentioned several times, the site they wish to build on is the best from all aspects but primarily because it has local transport links in buses and trains. Not everyone is lucky enough to have a car and the hospice must be built where it is easily accessible.
Q: What has the work of this charity got do with them wishing to build on green built?
A: Nothing!
Green belt is green belt and we should defend it from any organisation who feels they have a right to run roughshod over the planning laws. That is the most galling thing about this applications by Havens; they are using the fact that they look after the terminally ill as a tool to convince people that the planning laws should be ignored because their work is special.
I hope people will now boycott any fund raising by the organisation, who are very rich and do not need public funding.
I wonder how much they have wasted on this activity?
It would have been far better to have spent the donations by the public on care and not on appeals and publicity for building on green belt land.
rhowes
says...
10:33am Thu 18 Oct 12
Havens Office is an ideal complex to be built on a brown-field site! Southend has a number of suitable sites.
I do hope they don't waste thousands of pounds more by appealing our Council's decision.
I do hope they don't waste thousands of pounds more by appealing our Council's decision.
Elephantman2
says...
11:25am Thu 18 Oct 12
barneldu wrote:Yes you are correct some are. You have not given one reason as to why the planning laws should be ignored. My point of view and your point of view are irrelevant. What is the law?
Elephantman2 wrote:God how short sighted some people are. Why don't you try and see this from somebody else's point of view? This has nothing to do with Havens riding roughshod over planning laws. It has to do with Havens wanting to supply the best palliative care that it can. As has been mentioned several times, the site they wish to build on is the best from all aspects but primarily because it has local transport links in buses and trains. Not everyone is lucky enough to have a car and the hospice must be built where it is easily accessible.
Q: What has the work of this charity got do with them wishing to build on green built?
A: Nothing!
Green belt is green belt and we should defend it from any organisation who feels they have a right to run roughshod over the planning laws. That is the most galling thing about this applications by Havens; they are using the fact that they look after the terminally ill as a tool to convince people that the planning laws should be ignored because their work is special.
Havens have wasted significant amounts of money trying to overide planning laws and they are discarding years of good will built up in this area.
I want to live in the best area that I can and fancy a sea view; is it alright for me to build my house next to Havens should they get planning permission?
Stupid question I know; nearly as stupid as the money that has been wasted on this project.
perini
says...
11:50am Thu 18 Oct 12
Lets face it - if you go into Havens as a patient you know you're not walking out. Are you really that bothered about what is outside the window or are you more interested in the level of (pain-free) care and quality time spent with loved ones? A lot of the remarks on this board allude to the palliative care given so I take it that this is one area where Havens excels itself and people want for their loved ones last days. On that basis the location is irrelevant so pick any non greenbelt site and develop that. To the moaners who keep on harping about rail/road links - the current Chalkwell Ave site and Little Havens seem to be accessible and have been for so many years so that argument doesn't wash!
wagger
says...
12:14pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Well done Southend Council. Care for the terminally ill is most important, but these plans were for a commercial development housing 180 + staff, parking for 80 + vehicles, + other facilities -- only two extra bedrooms ! all on 7 acres of wonderful open countryside. The Salvation Army are building an industrial/commercia
l development on their land at Hadleigh, the land between will then surely be up for grabs -- a fortune to be made if planning is granted. I smell a conspiracy between Havens & The Salvation Army.
l development on their land at Hadleigh, the land between will then surely be up for grabs -- a fortune to be made if planning is granted. I smell a conspiracy between Havens & The Salvation Army.
Dapper Dave
says...
12:22pm Thu 18 Oct 12
v.randy wrote:Yeah maybe like getting you a heart aye Tin Man? Or a personality? Or a friend?
At least it's over now ,perhaps this will create some space for more pressing issues.
Dapper Dave
says...
12:25pm Thu 18 Oct 12
andy:) wrote:Yeah its just a shame that Haven's couldnt offer the councillors a little monetary persuasion - undoubtedly their argument for Greenbelt land will be forgetten when a nice Fat Walleted developer comes along. Then we will be told that there is a desperate need for Cheap Housing and more sports facilities. Brilliant, well done democracy!
heartbeat wrote:Exactly. This type of emotional blackmail was exactly the type of language that havens promised not to use, and to be fair, they mostly havnt..BUT 'supporters' on here and elsewhere have been quick to use such arguments, 'how would you like it if your father was dying of cancer', etc..this type of language does them and havens no favours at all. As Southenmd Council have made clear, there must be VERY special circumstances to allow building on green belt, simply claiming that there are no other sites is simply not good enough, now Havens instead of wasting more money on further appeals and losing more support, please think again, re-viist the other sites and perhaps change your criteria. Im sure there must be many other perfect locations in the local area.MickyLeigh wrote: I am very pleased, but also disturbed. I understand the argument for and against but I simply because I believe that this precious greenbelt should remain untouched also means, according to those for the development, I do not care about dying people. This is very insulting. Please make your case in a mature manor instead of this ridiculous emotive language.Absolutely. How ridiculous to try and make out that "not wanting a hospice to be built on green belt land in an incredibly built up borough" means the same as "not wanting a hospice". Obviously we are all on the same page when it comes to wanting a hospice where our loved ones and maybe ourselves are well-looked after in comfortable, pleasant surroundings. But it is NOT necessary to build a hospice on greenbelt land to achieve this!!! Havens - please look again at Esplanande House...win back the thousands of supporters who now do not trust the way Havens is run and do us all a favour. Maybe Havens could try to negotiate on the cost of building there, seeing as it is such a dreadful eyesore and would improve the town's image dramatically if it was demolished and rebuilt with an attractive landscaped building.
Dapper Dave
says...
12:28pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Elephantman2 wrote:Actually Haven's were working within the law on these occasions, applying for the land as a special circumstance application. Therefore they did not run 'roughshod' over the planning laws. Have you actually read any of the material on this issue? That put forward by the council, the hospice and the opposition group? No? Then be quiet...
Q: What has the work of this charity got do with them wishing to build on green built? A: Nothing! Green belt is green belt and we should defend it from any organisation who feels they have a right to run roughshod over the planning laws. That is the most galling thing about this applications by Havens; they are using the fact that they look after the terminally ill as a tool to convince people that the planning laws should be ignored because their work is special.
Dapper Dave
says...
12:33pm Thu 18 Oct 12
notinwestcliffanymorTell you what, you move to Victoria Avenue instead aye? Would you like to live there? No, because its a s**theap. Unless you tear the whole street down and rebuild it, it is a completely unviable site for a Hospice to be built. In fact I think it has been condemned as unliveable. However "notinwestcliffanymo
e wrote:
barneldu wrote:As does victoria ave, but also an abundance of buildable land.Elephantman2 wrote: Q: What has the work of this charity got do with them wishing to build on green built? A: Nothing! Green belt is green belt and we should defend it from any organisation who feels they have a right to run roughshod over the planning laws. That is the most galling thing about this applications by Havens; they are using the fact that they look after the terminally ill as a tool to convince people that the planning laws should be ignored because their work is special.God how short sighted some people are. Why don't you try and see this from somebody else's point of view? This has nothing to do with Havens riding roughshod over planning laws. It has to do with Havens wanting to supply the best palliative care that it can. As has been mentioned several times, the site they wish to build on is the best from all aspects but primarily because it has local transport links in buses and trains. Not everyone is lucky enough to have a car and the hospice must be built where it is easily accessible.
re" please feel free to move there yourself.
Dapper Dave
says...
12:35pm Thu 18 Oct 12
rhowes wrote:Tell us all where!!!! Be really specific!!! By the way have you read the report detailing the 212 sites they have looked at, you would have seen the reason, per site, why it wasnt suitable! And the fact that the planning officers agreed with them!! You are really helpful! (Not)
Havens Office is an ideal complex to be built on a brown-field site! Southend has a number of suitable sites. I do hope they don't waste thousands of pounds more by appealing our Council's decision.
Dapper Dave
says...
12:36pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Elephantman2 wrote:Well the people that live on the Marine Parade estate built their houses on Green Belt land (including Mike King), so why not?
barneldu wrote:Yes you are correct some are. You have not given one reason as to why the planning laws should be ignored. My point of view and your point of view are irrelevant. What is the law? Havens have wasted significant amounts of money trying to overide planning laws and they are discarding years of good will built up in this area. I want to live in the best area that I can and fancy a sea view; is it alright for me to build my house next to Havens should they get planning permission? Stupid question I know; nearly as stupid as the money that has been wasted on this project.Elephantman2 wrote: Q: What has the work of this charity got do with them wishing to build on green built? A: Nothing! Green belt is green belt and we should defend it from any organisation who feels they have a right to run roughshod over the planning laws. That is the most galling thing about this applications by Havens; they are using the fact that they look after the terminally ill as a tool to convince people that the planning laws should be ignored because their work is special.God how short sighted some people are. Why don't you try and see this from somebody else's point of view? This has nothing to do with Havens riding roughshod over planning laws. It has to do with Havens wanting to supply the best palliative care that it can. As has been mentioned several times, the site they wish to build on is the best from all aspects but primarily because it has local transport links in buses and trains. Not everyone is lucky enough to have a car and the hospice must be built where it is easily accessible.
Dapper Dave
says...
12:42pm Thu 18 Oct 12
perini wrote:Do you know anything about the Hospice AT ALL??? I didnt at first, but I at least took the time to find out before I commented!!! Not every person that goes into Fair Havens is at the end of their llife, many go there for respite care, counselling, or many other forms of treatment. If you bothered to understand the Hospice and what it does, then you may be entitled to say your opinion on what is or isnt outside the window. But you dont, so your point of view is irrelevant. Go away.
Lets face it - if you go into Havens as a patient you know you're not walking out. Are you really that bothered about what is outside the window or are you more interested in the level of (pain-free) care and quality time spent with loved ones? A lot of the remarks on this board allude to the palliative care given so I take it that this is one area where Havens excels itself and people want for their loved ones last days. On that basis the location is irrelevant so pick any non greenbelt site and develop that. To the moaners who keep on harping about rail/road links - the current Chalkwell Ave site and Little Havens seem to be accessible and have been for so many years so that argument doesn't wash!
Dapper Dave
says...
12:45pm Thu 18 Oct 12
wagger wrote:I bet that you are one of these ignorant people arent you "wagger" that just accuses people of things that arent true? Well how about this - I think that you are a land developer, and that you wanted the Hospice plan to be rejected, because you actually want to build a block of flats there and make a big pile of money. See its easy to lie and make things up isnt it...
Well done Southend Council. Care for the terminally ill is most important, but these plans were for a commercial development housing 180 + staff, parking for 80 + vehicles, + other facilities -- only two extra bedrooms ! all on 7 acres of wonderful open countryside. The Salvation Army are building an industrial/commercia l development on their land at Hadleigh, the land between will then surely be up for grabs -- a fortune to be made if planning is granted. I smell a conspiracy between Havens & The Salvation Army.
Elephantman2
says...
12:46pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Dapper Dave wrote:As was Londinium; which is as relevant to this argument as your point is!
Elephantman2 wrote:Well the people that live on the Marine Parade estate built their houses on Green Belt land (including Mike King), so why not?
barneldu wrote:Yes you are correct some are. You have not given one reason as to why the planning laws should be ignored. My point of view and your point of view are irrelevant. What is the law? Havens have wasted significant amounts of money trying to overide planning laws and they are discarding years of good will built up in this area. I want to live in the best area that I can and fancy a sea view; is it alright for me to build my house next to Havens should they get planning permission? Stupid question I know; nearly as stupid as the money that has been wasted on this project.Elephantman2 wrote: Q: What has the work of this charity got do with them wishing to build on green built? A: Nothing! Green belt is green belt and we should defend it from any organisation who feels they have a right to run roughshod over the planning laws. That is the most galling thing about this applications by Havens; they are using the fact that they look after the terminally ill as a tool to convince people that the planning laws should be ignored because their work is special.God how short sighted some people are. Why don't you try and see this from somebody else's point of view? This has nothing to do with Havens riding roughshod over planning laws. It has to do with Havens wanting to supply the best palliative care that it can. As has been mentioned several times, the site they wish to build on is the best from all aspects but primarily because it has local transport links in buses and trains. Not everyone is lucky enough to have a car and the hospice must be built where it is easily accessible.
Elephantman2
says...
12:50pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Dapper Dave wrote:There is no special circumstance. The challenge people like you have is that you are supporting a business that is batting on a very sticky wicket and are unable to accept any form of criticism. So be quiet...
Elephantman2 wrote:Actually Haven's were working within the law on these occasions, applying for the land as a special circumstance application. Therefore they did not run 'roughshod' over the planning laws. Have you actually read any of the material on this issue? That put forward by the council, the hospice and the opposition group? No? Then be quiet...
Q: What has the work of this charity got do with them wishing to build on green built? A: Nothing! Green belt is green belt and we should defend it from any organisation who feels they have a right to run roughshod over the planning laws. That is the most galling thing about this applications by Havens; they are using the fact that they look after the terminally ill as a tool to convince people that the planning laws should be ignored because their work is special.
Elephantman2
says...
12:52pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Dapper Dave wrote:What the hospice does is irrelevant. They are a business looking to build on green belt. The answer is still no!
perini wrote:Do you know anything about the Hospice AT ALL??? I didnt at first, but I at least took the time to find out before I commented!!! Not every person that goes into Fair Havens is at the end of their llife, many go there for respite care, counselling, or many other forms of treatment. If you bothered to understand the Hospice and what it does, then you may be entitled to say your opinion on what is or isnt outside the window. But you dont, so your point of view is irrelevant. Go away.
Lets face it - if you go into Havens as a patient you know you're not walking out. Are you really that bothered about what is outside the window or are you more interested in the level of (pain-free) care and quality time spent with loved ones? A lot of the remarks on this board allude to the palliative care given so I take it that this is one area where Havens excels itself and people want for their loved ones last days. On that basis the location is irrelevant so pick any non greenbelt site and develop that. To the moaners who keep on harping about rail/road links - the current Chalkwell Ave site and Little Havens seem to be accessible and have been for so many years so that argument doesn't wash!
Elephantman2
says...
12:55pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Is donkey dave a plant? They don't like it up em do they Captain Mainwaring!
perini
says...
12:55pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Dapper Dave wrote:So Dapper Dave - Can we assume that YOUR opinion is the ONLY one that counts then? It's a forum so you don't have to agree but every point is relevant.
perini wrote: Lets face it - if you go into Havens as a patient you know you're not walking out. Are you really that bothered about what is outside the window or are you more interested in the level of (pain-free) care and quality time spent with loved ones? A lot of the remarks on this board allude to the palliative care given so I take it that this is one area where Havens excels itself and people want for their loved ones last days. On that basis the location is irrelevant so pick any non greenbelt site and develop that. To the moaners who keep on harping about rail/road links - the current Chalkwell Ave site and Little Havens seem to be accessible and have been for so many years so that argument doesn't wash!Do you know anything about the Hospice AT ALL??? I didnt at first, but I at least took the time to find out before I commented!!! Not every person that goes into Fair Havens is at the end of their llife, many go there for respite care, counselling, or many other forms of treatment. If you bothered to understand the Hospice and what it does, then you may be entitled to say your opinion on what is or isnt outside the window. But you dont, so your point of view is irrelevant. Go away.
PRoch
says...
1:01pm Thu 18 Oct 12
For all those who accuse Havens Hospices of emotional blackmail. Shame on you. Emotional yes. Blackmail no. However "I'll stop donating until Havens withdraw plans" - blackmail? Oh yes.....
Not everything in this world is black & white. Planning guidelines are there for good reasons, but sometimes it takes a far braver man to look beyond what the papers say & make a leap of faith to benefit the entire community.
I think the council needs some young, fresh views who can see beyond the 'now' - DapperDave?
Not everything in this world is black & white. Planning guidelines are there for good reasons, but sometimes it takes a far braver man to look beyond what the papers say & make a leap of faith to benefit the entire community.
I think the council needs some young, fresh views who can see beyond the 'now' - DapperDave?
Elephantman2
says...
1:08pm Thu 18 Oct 12
PRoch wrote:If, as I do, you believe this project has been totally mismanaged by the charity; why would you continue to throw good money after bad? That isn't blackmail, that is making an informed decision on where you make your charity donations.
For all those who accuse Havens Hospices of emotional blackmail. Shame on you. Emotional yes. Blackmail no. However "I'll stop donating until Havens withdraw plans" - blackmail? Oh yes.....
Not everything in this world is black & white. Planning guidelines are there for good reasons, but sometimes it takes a far braver man to look beyond what the papers say & make a leap of faith to benefit the entire community.
I think the council needs some young, fresh views who can see beyond the 'now' - DapperDave?
This will not benefit the entire community unless of course you are guaranteeing that the entire community will be looked after at Havens when terminally ill?
Dapper Dave
says...
1:56pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Elephantman2 wrote:Really? I thought that the inhabitants of Londinium died thousands of years ago, whereas the people on the Marine Parade estate are still very much alive...
Dapper Dave wrote:As was Londinium; which is as relevant to this argument as your point is!Elephantman2 wrote:Well the people that live on the Marine Parade estate built their houses on Green Belt land (including Mike King), so why not?barneldu wrote:Yes you are correct some are. You have not given one reason as to why the planning laws should be ignored. My point of view and your point of view are irrelevant. What is the law? Havens have wasted significant amounts of money trying to overide planning laws and they are discarding years of good will built up in this area. I want to live in the best area that I can and fancy a sea view; is it alright for me to build my house next to Havens should they get planning permission? Stupid question I know; nearly as stupid as the money that has been wasted on this project.Elephantman2 wrote: Q: What has the work of this charity got do with them wishing to build on green built? A: Nothing! Green belt is green belt and we should defend it from any organisation who feels they have a right to run roughshod over the planning laws. That is the most galling thing about this applications by Havens; they are using the fact that they look after the terminally ill as a tool to convince people that the planning laws should be ignored because their work is special.God how short sighted some people are. Why don't you try and see this from somebody else's point of view? This has nothing to do with Havens riding roughshod over planning laws. It has to do with Havens wanting to supply the best palliative care that it can. As has been mentioned several times, the site they wish to build on is the best from all aspects but primarily because it has local transport links in buses and trains. Not everyone is lucky enough to have a car and the hospice must be built where it is easily accessible.
PRoch
says...
1:59pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Elephantman2 wrote:And the charity is making an informed decision about where is best for their patients.
PRoch wrote: For all those who accuse Havens Hospices of emotional blackmail. Shame on you. Emotional yes. Blackmail no. However "I'll stop donating until Havens withdraw plans" - blackmail? Oh yes..... Not everything in this world is black & white. Planning guidelines are there for good reasons, but sometimes it takes a far braver man to look beyond what the papers say & make a leap of faith to benefit the entire community. I think the council needs some young, fresh views who can see beyond the 'now' - DapperDave?If, as I do, you believe this project has been totally mismanaged by the charity; why would you continue to throw good money after bad? That isn't blackmail, that is making an informed decision on where you make your charity donations. This will not benefit the entire community unless of course you are guaranteeing that the entire community will be looked after at Havens when terminally ill?
Maybe Havens could if councillors gave them an alternative option and somewhere big enough to care for all the people that need their help!
And it is not emotional blackmail. It's truth.
rhowes
says...
2:24pm Thu 18 Oct 12
The Havens Office plans are for 90% office and administration space, fundraising space, and relaxtion for staff and visitors. This is an Office Complex, and should be housed on a brownfield site anywhere in Castle Point, Rochford, or Southend Council areas.
As the largest town in Essex,we need our green belt, our cliff gardens, and our parkland in Southend.
To appeal the decision, will simply waste more money donated by local people who, like most of us, fully support the amazing work that is done in the hospice movement.
As the largest town in Essex,we need our green belt, our cliff gardens, and our parkland in Southend.
To appeal the decision, will simply waste more money donated by local people who, like most of us, fully support the amazing work that is done in the hospice movement.
Dapper Dave
says...
2:59pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Elephantman2 wrote:Well I feel that it is a special circumstance. And I fail to see how they are on a 'Sticky Wicket'. The hospice has accepted tons of criticism (most of it completely unfounded) with dignity and grace. I am sticking up for the hospice from people like you who make unfair comments, most of them ill-informed. So no, I wont be quiet...
Dapper Dave wrote:There is no special circumstance. The challenge people like you have is that you are supporting a business that is batting on a very sticky wicket and are unable to accept any form of criticism. So be quiet...Elephantman2 wrote: Q: What has the work of this charity got do with them wishing to build on green built? A: Nothing! Green belt is green belt and we should defend it from any organisation who feels they have a right to run roughshod over the planning laws. That is the most galling thing about this applications by Havens; they are using the fact that they look after the terminally ill as a tool to convince people that the planning laws should be ignored because their work is special.Actually Haven's were working within the law on these occasions, applying for the land as a special circumstance application. Therefore they did not run 'roughshod' over the planning laws. Have you actually read any of the material on this issue? That put forward by the council, the hospice and the opposition group? No? Then be quiet...
Dapper Dave
says...
3:03pm Thu 18 Oct 12
perini wrote:Ive never said that my opinion is the ONLY one that counts, its just that its the one that counts the most (I jest). However, when you start talking like you know what is best for the sick and dying, when you have no experience, then your opinion means nothing to me. The rest of your comment I can read and understand, but please do not pretend that you understand the needs of the patients at the hospice, because you most certainly DO NOT.
Dapper Dave wrote:So Dapper Dave - Can we assume that YOUR opinion is the ONLY one that counts then? It's a forum so you don't have to agree but every point is relevant.perini wrote: Lets face it - if you go into Havens as a patient you know you're not walking out. Are you really that bothered about what is outside the window or are you more interested in the level of (pain-free) care and quality time spent with loved ones? A lot of the remarks on this board allude to the palliative care given so I take it that this is one area where Havens excels itself and people want for their loved ones last days. On that basis the location is irrelevant so pick any non greenbelt site and develop that. To the moaners who keep on harping about rail/road links - the current Chalkwell Ave site and Little Havens seem to be accessible and have been for so many years so that argument doesn't wash!Do you know anything about the Hospice AT ALL??? I didnt at first, but I at least took the time to find out before I commented!!! Not every person that goes into Fair Havens is at the end of their llife, many go there for respite care, counselling, or many other forms of treatment. If you bothered to understand the Hospice and what it does, then you may be entitled to say your opinion on what is or isnt outside the window. But you dont, so your point of view is irrelevant. Go away.
Dapper Dave
says...
3:05pm Thu 18 Oct 12
rhowes wrote:Actually you have that wrong rhowes - its over 90% care and less than 10% for administrative space. Who advised you of the figures that you stated? Its all on the plans...
The Havens Office plans are for 90% office and administration space, fundraising space, and relaxtion for staff and visitors. This is an Office Complex, and should be housed on a brownfield site anywhere in Castle Point, Rochford, or Southend Council areas. As the largest town in Essex,we need our green belt, our cliff gardens, and our parkland in Southend. To appeal the decision, will simply waste more money donated by local people who, like most of us, fully support the amazing work that is done in the hospice movement.
Dapper Dave
says...
3:18pm Thu 18 Oct 12
PRoch wrote:I couldnt possibly comment, but watch this space! Wouldnt it be an ideal world if people didnt just read and believe everything they read in the papers :) Completely agree with your view on the blackmailing situation - people are quite hypocritical with their views sometimes arent they!
For all those who accuse Havens Hospices of emotional blackmail. Shame on you. Emotional yes. Blackmail no. However "I'll stop donating until Havens withdraw plans" - blackmail? Oh yes..... Not everything in this world is black & white. Planning guidelines are there for good reasons, but sometimes it takes a far braver man to look beyond what the papers say & make a leap of faith to benefit the entire community. I think the council needs some young, fresh views who can see beyond the 'now' - DapperDave?
Elephantman2
says...
3:46pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Dapper Dave wrote:Good; then don't tell me to be quite!
Elephantman2 wrote:Well I feel that it is a special circumstance. And I fail to see how they are on a 'Sticky Wicket'. The hospice has accepted tons of criticism (most of it completely unfounded) with dignity and grace. I am sticking up for the hospice from people like you who make unfair comments, most of them ill-informed. So no, I wont be quiet...
Dapper Dave wrote:There is no special circumstance. The challenge people like you have is that you are supporting a business that is batting on a very sticky wicket and are unable to accept any form of criticism. So be quiet...Elephantman2 wrote: Q: What has the work of this charity got do with them wishing to build on green built? A: Nothing! Green belt is green belt and we should defend it from any organisation who feels they have a right to run roughshod over the planning laws. That is the most galling thing about this applications by Havens; they are using the fact that they look after the terminally ill as a tool to convince people that the planning laws should be ignored because their work is special.Actually Haven's were working within the law on these occasions, applying for the land as a special circumstance application. Therefore they did not run 'roughshod' over the planning laws. Have you actually read any of the material on this issue? That put forward by the council, the hospice and the opposition group? No? Then be quiet...
Elephantman2
says...
3:50pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Dapper Dave wrote:Your arrogance is breathtaking.
perini wrote:Ive never said that my opinion is the ONLY one that counts, its just that its the one that counts the most (I jest). However, when you start talking like you know what is best for the sick and dying, when you have no experience, then your opinion means nothing to me. The rest of your comment I can read and understand, but please do not pretend that you understand the needs of the patients at the hospice, because you most certainly DO NOT.
Dapper Dave wrote:So Dapper Dave - Can we assume that YOUR opinion is the ONLY one that counts then? It's a forum so you don't have to agree but every point is relevant.perini wrote: Lets face it - if you go into Havens as a patient you know you're not walking out. Are you really that bothered about what is outside the window or are you more interested in the level of (pain-free) care and quality time spent with loved ones? A lot of the remarks on this board allude to the palliative care given so I take it that this is one area where Havens excels itself and people want for their loved ones last days. On that basis the location is irrelevant so pick any non greenbelt site and develop that. To the moaners who keep on harping about rail/road links - the current Chalkwell Ave site and Little Havens seem to be accessible and have been for so many years so that argument doesn't wash!Do you know anything about the Hospice AT ALL??? I didnt at first, but I at least took the time to find out before I commented!!! Not every person that goes into Fair Havens is at the end of their llife, many go there for respite care, counselling, or many other forms of treatment. If you bothered to understand the Hospice and what it does, then you may be entitled to say your opinion on what is or isnt outside the window. But you dont, so your point of view is irrelevant. Go away.
My father died Havens did a brillaint job of support during his last few months. I donate to the charity (or did).
I would not claim to be an expert on the works of hospices because of that experience.
However those facts are totally irrelevant to this planning application and your arguments are spurious.
mauwoman
says...
4:26pm Thu 18 Oct 12
I have lost track of who said what but I would like to point out that when the houses on Marine Parade and much of south Leigh were built, there was no Green Belt. The laws came in after the war to stop urban sprawl, without them we would probably be part of greater London
Dapper Dave
says...
4:27pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Elephantman2 wrote:Thats a bit harsh Elephantman2, after all I am only expressing my opinion. In fact everyone is entitled to their opinion, it just makes me sad and angry when people arent aware of the facts and say things that are untrue, because that then influences other people and the untruths perpetuate themselves. Why do you say that you DID donate to the charity? Has what they are planning really changed your opinion of them that much that you wont support them any more? That is a shame if that is the case, the hospice has only followed through with actions that it has been advised, by legal and council sources, it is entitled to do. I dont see how anyone could hold a grudge against them for that. My arguments are not spurious, as I also agree with the building of the hospice on Green belt land on a planning base, not just emotive!
Dapper Dave wrote:Your arrogance is breathtaking. My father died Havens did a brillaint job of support during his last few months. I donate to the charity (or did). I would not claim to be an expert on the works of hospices because of that experience. However those facts are totally irrelevant to this planning application and your arguments are spurious.perini wrote:Ive never said that my opinion is the ONLY one that counts, its just that its the one that counts the most (I jest). However, when you start talking like you know what is best for the sick and dying, when you have no experience, then your opinion means nothing to me. The rest of your comment I can read and understand, but please do not pretend that you understand the needs of the patients at the hospice, because you most certainly DO NOT.Dapper Dave wrote:So Dapper Dave - Can we assume that YOUR opinion is the ONLY one that counts then? It's a forum so you don't have to agree but every point is relevant.perini wrote: Lets face it - if you go into Havens as a patient you know you're not walking out. Are you really that bothered about what is outside the window or are you more interested in the level of (pain-free) care and quality time spent with loved ones? A lot of the remarks on this board allude to the palliative care given so I take it that this is one area where Havens excels itself and people want for their loved ones last days. On that basis the location is irrelevant so pick any non greenbelt site and develop that. To the moaners who keep on harping about rail/road links - the current Chalkwell Ave site and Little Havens seem to be accessible and have been for so many years so that argument doesn't wash!Do you know anything about the Hospice AT ALL??? I didnt at first, but I at least took the time to find out before I commented!!! Not every person that goes into Fair Havens is at the end of their llife, many go there for respite care, counselling, or many other forms of treatment. If you bothered to understand the Hospice and what it does, then you may be entitled to say your opinion on what is or isnt outside the window. But you dont, so your point of view is irrelevant. Go away.
dizzy15
says...
4:51pm Thu 18 Oct 12
GentleGiant wrote:I would really like to understand this green- belt issue. So if we can remove the idea that it is a hospice wishing to build on the land, I would like to take it on fact. The building will be built with care and with a respect for the natural environment, in fact encouraging more natural growth in its many forms.
barneldu wrote:No - havens think they are above the law!
Elephantman2 wrote:God how short sighted some people are. Why don't you try and see this from somebody else's point of view? This has nothing to do with Havens riding roughshod over planning laws. It has to do with Havens wanting to supply the best palliative care that it can. As has been mentioned several times, the site they wish to build on is the best from all aspects but primarily because it has local transport links in buses and trains. Not everyone is lucky enough to have a car and the hospice must be built where it is easily accessible.
Q: What has the work of this charity got do with them wishing to build on green built?
A: Nothing!
Green belt is green belt and we should defend it from any organisation who feels they have a right to run roughshod over the planning laws. That is the most galling thing about this applications by Havens; they are using the fact that they look after the terminally ill as a tool to convince people that the planning laws should be ignored because their work is special.
I hope people will now boycott any fund raising by the organisation, who are very rich and do not need public funding.
I wonder how much they have wasted on this activity?
It would have been far better to have spent the donations by the public on care and not on appeals and publicity for building on green belt land.
If housing was to be placed on this land would the same care be taken and surely more environmental damage would take place. Therefore in my mind it makes perfect sense to allow Havens to build here before some else does. Please do not think that this is not the case, if money is to be had the powers to be will be right behind it.
MickyLeigh
says...
4:52pm Thu 18 Oct 12
I would be against the development if it was a women’s refuge, orphanage, hospice or cancer research centre. We could have worthy causes stretching all the way to the castle. I simply want to keep this piece of green belt green. This does not make me a ‘nimby’ or ‘heartless’ or any other insulting names you want to throw simply because I don’t agree. Havens do a great job and many people believe they are exceptional enough to build on this beautiful piece of land. I’m sorry to say I do not.
APR
says...
5:09pm Thu 18 Oct 12
I doubt there will be this fuss made when the visitor centre is built at the mountain bike course, and the Sally Anne build their new restaurant.
Then again, they won't impede anyone's views.
Then again, they won't impede anyone's views.
Steve H
says...
5:42pm Thu 18 Oct 12
MickyLeigh wrote:Thoroughly agree.
I would be against the development if it was a women’s refuge, orphanage, hospice or cancer research centre. We could have worthy causes stretching all the way to the castle. I simply want to keep this piece of green belt green. This does not make me a ‘nimby’ or ‘heartless’ or any other insulting names you want to throw simply because I don’t agree. Havens do a great job and many people believe they are exceptional enough to build on this beautiful piece of land. I’m sorry to say I do not.
Just because it's a childrens hospice doesn't make it above the law.
There are many other worthy causes and the building of said hospice could create a precedent.
I am sorry for those who are involved but the right decision has been made.
mauwoman
says...
7:00pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Do we not have to question the management of Havens who recently spent a lot of money upgrading the Chalkwell Avenue site only to now tell us it is inadequate.
They have then spent a fortune on architects fees designing the new hospice without finding out if there would be a problem building on green belt. Is that because they managed it last time with Little Havens and feel they have set a precedent?
They have then spent a fortune on architects fees designing the new hospice without finding out if there would be a problem building on green belt. Is that because they managed it last time with Little Havens and feel they have set a precedent?
couldbe
says...
8:07pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Steve h it is not a childrens hospice they want to build its an adult one, at least get your facts right.
perini for your information the public transport ot Little Havens has become more unrelaible and less frequent over the years that it has been open.
perini for your information the public transport ot Little Havens has become more unrelaible and less frequent over the years that it has been open.
andy:)
says...
8:18pm Thu 18 Oct 12
dizzy15 wrote:But a building is a building, it will mean digging up grass, flowers and trees, thats a fact, there is no geting around it, however nice the artist impressions are.
GentleGiant wrote:I would really like to understand this green- belt issue. So if we can remove the idea that it is a hospice wishing to build on the land, I would like to take it on fact. The building will be built with care and with a respect for the natural environment, in fact encouraging more natural growth in its many forms.
barneldu wrote:No - havens think they are above the law!
Elephantman2 wrote:God how short sighted some people are. Why don't you try and see this from somebody else's point of view? This has nothing to do with Havens riding roughshod over planning laws. It has to do with Havens wanting to supply the best palliative care that it can. As has been mentioned several times, the site they wish to build on is the best from all aspects but primarily because it has local transport links in buses and trains. Not everyone is lucky enough to have a car and the hospice must be built where it is easily accessible.
Q: What has the work of this charity got do with them wishing to build on green built?
A: Nothing!
Green belt is green belt and we should defend it from any organisation who feels they have a right to run roughshod over the planning laws. That is the most galling thing about this applications by Havens; they are using the fact that they look after the terminally ill as a tool to convince people that the planning laws should be ignored because their work is special.
I hope people will now boycott any fund raising by the organisation, who are very rich and do not need public funding.
I wonder how much they have wasted on this activity?
It would have been far better to have spent the donations by the public on care and not on appeals and publicity for building on green belt land.
If housing was to be placed on this land would the same care be taken and surely more environmental damage would take place. Therefore in my mind it makes perfect sense to allow Havens to build here before some else does. Please do not think that this is not the case, if money is to be had the powers to be will be right behind it.
You have no evidence at all that if turned down someone else will start building there so you saying it makes sense to build the hopsice now is complete tosh.
Im sure if Havens looked seriously at the other 200 odd sites they turned down they will find an ideal site suitable for everuyone, by carrying on and appealing they are going to klose contributions and annoy the people who oppose it.
Andy
davedobbin
says...
8:38pm Thu 18 Oct 12
One of the background emotions of the 'antis' is that the Havens boss comes over as extremely arrogant in his justification.'WE have looked and WE have decided that there is nowhere else suitable'. One thing about the British is that they don't mind someone being successful, but they don't like them being arrogant about it. In this case Havens are good as a charity but as a development company they need to be more realistic about the likelihood of getting a development through - location, size, etc. Listen to what the planning officers and councillors are really saying,and be a bit more humble.
dizzy15
says...
10:35pm Thu 18 Oct 12
andy:) wrote:I understand the fact that all buildings are buildings and I also understand that it will mean digging up natural habitat. The current area is a piece of ploughed agricultural land, not a spot of great natural beauty.The little Havens Hospice is a fine example of how Havens who have worked in partnership with the Essex wildlife trust have improved existing natural area. If Havens were to build here the area would become one of Natural Beauty.
dizzy15 wrote:But a building is a building, it will mean digging up grass, flowers and trees, thats a fact, there is no geting around it, however nice the artist impressions are.
GentleGiant wrote:I would really like to understand this green- belt issue. So if we can remove the idea that it is a hospice wishing to build on the land, I would like to take it on fact. The building will be built with care and with a respect for the natural environment, in fact encouraging more natural growth in its many forms.
barneldu wrote:No - havens think they are above the law!
Elephantman2 wrote:God how short sighted some people are. Why don't you try and see this from somebody else's point of view? This has nothing to do with Havens riding roughshod over planning laws. It has to do with Havens wanting to supply the best palliative care that it can. As has been mentioned several times, the site they wish to build on is the best from all aspects but primarily because it has local transport links in buses and trains. Not everyone is lucky enough to have a car and the hospice must be built where it is easily accessible.
Q: What has the work of this charity got do with them wishing to build on green built?
A: Nothing!
Green belt is green belt and we should defend it from any organisation who feels they have a right to run roughshod over the planning laws. That is the most galling thing about this applications by Havens; they are using the fact that they look after the terminally ill as a tool to convince people that the planning laws should be ignored because their work is special.
I hope people will now boycott any fund raising by the organisation, who are very rich and do not need public funding.
I wonder how much they have wasted on this activity?
It would have been far better to have spent the donations by the public on care and not on appeals and publicity for building on green belt land.
If housing was to be placed on this land would the same care be taken and surely more environmental damage would take place. Therefore in my mind it makes perfect sense to allow Havens to build here before some else does. Please do not think that this is not the case, if money is to be had the powers to be will be right behind it.
You have no evidence at all that if turned down someone else will start building there so you saying it makes sense to build the hopsice now is complete tosh.
Im sure if Havens looked seriously at the other 200 odd sites they turned down they will find an ideal site suitable for everuyone, by carrying on and appealing they are going to klose contributions and annoy the people who oppose it.
Andy
You are right I do not have evidence that another building project would be given the go ahead however I know of other recent developments that have been given the go ahead to be built on greenbelt i.e Southend football stadium.
Havens have looked all the possible sites with intense scrutiny, this can be seen by viewing the planning application, they work in the best interests of their Patients and this is the best site for it. As far as Hospice care and all of support involved I consider them to be the experts and therefore they fully understand the need of their Patients above and beyond anyone else. Hospice care is unique as is every single person and family that requires the support. I am certain that they will annoy the minority that oppose it but i doubt it will effect contributions as their work far far oversees any narrow minded persons view on a building. This is about far more than a building, it portrays the complex and very necessary work and care in which they are experts.
barneldu
says...
11:21pm Thu 18 Oct 12
I AM NOW BEGINNING TO GET VERY VERY ANGRY. HOW MANY TIMES DOES THIS HAVE TO BE SAID. HAVENS HAVE NOT SPENT ANY MONEY ON THIS PROJECT THAT WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN SPENT ON PATIENT CARE. THE MONEY USED WAS A LEGACY LEFT TO THE HOSPICE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GETTING THE PLANS DRAWN UP AND APPROVED. THE PEOPLE WHO INSIST THAT HAVENS ARE USING FUNDS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN FOR PATIENT CARE HAVE HEARD THIS SEVERAL TIMES BUT HAVE CHOSEN TO IGNORE IT. THEY ARE EITHER BLIND, DEAF OR JUST PLAIN STUPID.
barneldu
says...
11:25pm Thu 18 Oct 12
MickyLeigh wrote:You would only have worthy causes or anything else for that matter stretching to Hadleigh Castle if 1) the owners sold it and 2) the council granted planning permission. So that isn't likely to happen is it?
I would be against the development if it was a women’s refuge, orphanage, hospice or cancer research centre. We could have worthy causes stretching all the way to the castle. I simply want to keep this piece of green belt green. This does not make me a ‘nimby’ or ‘heartless’ or any other insulting names you want to throw simply because I don’t agree. Havens do a great job and many people believe they are exceptional enough to build on this beautiful piece of land. I’m sorry to say I do not.
HK9597
says...
6:33am Fri 19 Oct 12
barneldu wrote:That would be fine if the plans had been approved, however they will now have to start all over again, or start the appeal process, and this will cost them a great deal of money.
I AM NOW BEGINNING TO GET VERY VERY ANGRY. HOW MANY TIMES DOES THIS HAVE TO BE SAID. HAVENS HAVE NOT SPENT ANY MONEY ON THIS PROJECT THAT WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN SPENT ON PATIENT CARE. THE MONEY USED WAS A LEGACY LEFT TO THE HOSPICE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GETTING THE PLANS DRAWN UP AND APPROVED. THE PEOPLE WHO INSIST THAT HAVENS ARE USING FUNDS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN FOR PATIENT CARE HAVE HEARD THIS SEVERAL TIMES BUT HAVE CHOSEN TO IGNORE IT. THEY ARE EITHER BLIND, DEAF OR JUST PLAIN STUPID.
If they appeal, or amend the plans and are unsuccessful again, will they appeal again or concentrate on getting a location that will be approved?
Whatever happens, they have wasted money that could have been spent elsewhere. Put simply they have spent a great deal of money, with nothing to show for it, and will have to spend a great deal more to get a suitable site. So yes they have wasted money that could have been spent elsewhere. Mismanagement and incompetence!
openspace
says...
8:33am Fri 19 Oct 12
I was one of those who originally signed the petition in favour of the hospice. I now wish I hadn't. Whilst there is no doubt of the very great value of hospices, I originally thought, like many others, that we were supporting a 16 bed hospice. It now appears that what is being sought is a much bigger prestige complex, including office space for fund raising staff, etc, ( these could be based anywhere in the area in any one of the huge number of empty office buildings that are available. When asked what "plan B" was for the hospice, a spokesman said there was no plan B, this was the only possible site.
QUESTION, if this land did not exist, what would the hospice supporters do then, give up ???.
I suspect they would find somewhere else, even if it meant separating the hospice from office accommodation, ( not unreasonable or impractical ). That is what they should do now. They are, I suspect, losing many supporters like myself , who will no longer donate to their cause because of their intransigence.
QUESTION, if this land did not exist, what would the hospice supporters do then, give up ???.
I suspect they would find somewhere else, even if it meant separating the hospice from office accommodation, ( not unreasonable or impractical ). That is what they should do now. They are, I suspect, losing many supporters like myself , who will no longer donate to their cause because of their intransigence.
Shrimpers Not Blues
says...
10:26am Fri 19 Oct 12
dizzy15 wrote:I thought the SUFC Stadium is to be built on a Brownfield site.
andy:) wrote:I understand the fact that all buildings are buildings and I also understand that it will mean digging up natural habitat. The current area is a piece of ploughed agricultural land, not a spot of great natural beauty.The little Havens Hospice is a fine example of how Havens who have worked in partnership with the Essex wildlife trust have improved existing natural area. If Havens were to build here the area would become one of Natural Beauty.
dizzy15 wrote:But a building is a building, it will mean digging up grass, flowers and trees, thats a fact, there is no geting around it, however nice the artist impressions are.
GentleGiant wrote:I would really like to understand this green- belt issue. So if we can remove the idea that it is a hospice wishing to build on the land, I would like to take it on fact. The building will be built with care and with a respect for the natural environment, in fact encouraging more natural growth in its many forms.
barneldu wrote:No - havens think they are above the law!
Elephantman2 wrote:God how short sighted some people are. Why don't you try and see this from somebody else's point of view? This has nothing to do with Havens riding roughshod over planning laws. It has to do with Havens wanting to supply the best palliative care that it can. As has been mentioned several times, the site they wish to build on is the best from all aspects but primarily because it has local transport links in buses and trains. Not everyone is lucky enough to have a car and the hospice must be built where it is easily accessible.
Q: What has the work of this charity got do with them wishing to build on green built?
A: Nothing!
Green belt is green belt and we should defend it from any organisation who feels they have a right to run roughshod over the planning laws. That is the most galling thing about this applications by Havens; they are using the fact that they look after the terminally ill as a tool to convince people that the planning laws should be ignored because their work is special.
I hope people will now boycott any fund raising by the organisation, who are very rich and do not need public funding.
I wonder how much they have wasted on this activity?
It would have been far better to have spent the donations by the public on care and not on appeals and publicity for building on green belt land.
If housing was to be placed on this land would the same care be taken and surely more environmental damage would take place. Therefore in my mind it makes perfect sense to allow Havens to build here before some else does. Please do not think that this is not the case, if money is to be had the powers to be will be right behind it.
You have no evidence at all that if turned down someone else will start building there so you saying it makes sense to build the hopsice now is complete tosh.
Im sure if Havens looked seriously at the other 200 odd sites they turned down they will find an ideal site suitable for everuyone, by carrying on and appealing they are going to klose contributions and annoy the people who oppose it.
Andy
You are right I do not have evidence that another building project would be given the go ahead however I know of other recent developments that have been given the go ahead to be built on greenbelt i.e Southend football stadium.
Havens have looked all the possible sites with intense scrutiny, this can be seen by viewing the planning application, they work in the best interests of their Patients and this is the best site for it. As far as Hospice care and all of support involved I consider them to be the experts and therefore they fully understand the need of their Patients above and beyond anyone else. Hospice care is unique as is every single person and family that requires the support. I am certain that they will annoy the minority that oppose it but i doubt it will effect contributions as their work far far oversees any narrow minded persons view on a building. This is about far more than a building, it portrays the complex and very necessary work and care in which they are experts.
Like others just because I am against the Belton Way site being used, doesn't mean I am against Havens building a new Hospice on an appropriate site.
I personally think that Havens should look at Esplanade House. It has the Sea Views they so desperately seem to want, if a patient can leave the hospice for some fresh air it would be easy to get over to the seafront side or Southchurch Park is just round the corner, also it is close to town, so if any vistitors need to get something it would be convenient for them, and it would be walkable.
I hope Havens do find a suitable site. Why not try to find a site like Little Havens. It's secluded and peaceful and before anyone jumps in, I do not mean out of site out of mind.
The land down at Leigh is and should remain something available for everyone to enjoy and make use off!
Eric Whim
says...
11:09am Fri 19 Oct 12
barneldu wrote:careful you don't hammer that keyboard too hard in your apoplectic fury.....
I AM NOW BEGINNING TO GET VERY VERY ANGRY. HOW MANY TIMES DOES THIS HAVE TO BE SAID. HAVENS HAVE NOT SPENT ANY MONEY ON THIS PROJECT THAT WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN SPENT ON PATIENT CARE. THE MONEY USED WAS A LEGACY LEFT TO THE HOSPICE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GETTING THE PLANS DRAWN UP AND APPROVED. THE PEOPLE WHO INSIST THAT HAVENS ARE USING FUNDS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN FOR PATIENT CARE HAVE HEARD THIS SEVERAL TIMES BUT HAVE CHOSEN TO IGNORE IT. THEY ARE EITHER BLIND, DEAF OR JUST PLAIN STUPID.
Interested Local
says...
12:26pm Fri 19 Oct 12
Eric Whim wrote:Hmmmm I suppose if your arguments have no substance and have been proven time and time again to be untrue, and if you're ignorant of the actual facts, you'll have to resort to ridiculing those passionate people who are in command of the correct information. The number of questions posed on such threads as this (such as why not build on the Green Belt land around Little Havens) just goes to prove that the majority of people, although also being passionate which I respect, have not read the vast amounts of publicly available information. Sadly this also seems to be the case for some of those in positions of power.
barneldu wrote:careful you don't hammer that keyboard too hard in your apoplectic fury.....
I AM NOW BEGINNING TO GET VERY VERY ANGRY. HOW MANY TIMES DOES THIS HAVE TO BE SAID. HAVENS HAVE NOT SPENT ANY MONEY ON THIS PROJECT THAT WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN SPENT ON PATIENT CARE. THE MONEY USED WAS A LEGACY LEFT TO THE HOSPICE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GETTING THE PLANS DRAWN UP AND APPROVED. THE PEOPLE WHO INSIST THAT HAVENS ARE USING FUNDS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN FOR PATIENT CARE HAVE HEARD THIS SEVERAL TIMES BUT HAVE CHOSEN TO IGNORE IT. THEY ARE EITHER BLIND, DEAF OR JUST PLAIN STUPID.
I never fail to be amused at all the untruths and ill informed comments made about this issue. But I guess the correct information doesn't serve the protestors’ cause very well so let's stick to the same old incorrect arguments as they're great for stirring up opposition.
I guess it's true what they say. Never underestimate the power of stupid and ill informed people in large numbers. Ooops you've got me doing it now.
Interested Local
says...
1:33pm Fri 19 Oct 12
perini wrote:Words fail me!
Lets face it - if you go into Havens as a patient you know you're not walking out. Are you really that bothered about what is outside the window or are you more interested in the level of (pain-free) care and quality time spent with loved ones? A lot of the remarks on this board allude to the palliative care given so I take it that this is one area where Havens excels itself and people want for their loved ones last days. On that basis the location is irrelevant so pick any non greenbelt site and develop that. To the moaners who keep on harping about rail/road links - the current Chalkwell Ave site and Little Havens seem to be accessible and have been for so many years so that argument doesn't wash!
HK9597
says...
2:05pm Fri 19 Oct 12
Interested Local wrote:So are you saying there aren't any suitable 'brown' locations for them to build this facility?
Eric Whim wrote:Hmmmm I suppose if your arguments have no substance and have been proven time and time again to be untrue, and if you're ignorant of the actual facts, you'll have to resort to ridiculing those passionate people who are in command of the correct information. The number of questions posed on such threads as this (such as why not build on the Green Belt land around Little Havens) just goes to prove that the majority of people, although also being passionate which I respect, have not read the vast amounts of publicly available information. Sadly this also seems to be the case for some of those in positions of power.
barneldu wrote:careful you don't hammer that keyboard too hard in your apoplectic fury.....
I AM NOW BEGINNING TO GET VERY VERY ANGRY. HOW MANY TIMES DOES THIS HAVE TO BE SAID. HAVENS HAVE NOT SPENT ANY MONEY ON THIS PROJECT THAT WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN SPENT ON PATIENT CARE. THE MONEY USED WAS A LEGACY LEFT TO THE HOSPICE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GETTING THE PLANS DRAWN UP AND APPROVED. THE PEOPLE WHO INSIST THAT HAVENS ARE USING FUNDS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN FOR PATIENT CARE HAVE HEARD THIS SEVERAL TIMES BUT HAVE CHOSEN TO IGNORE IT. THEY ARE EITHER BLIND, DEAF OR JUST PLAIN STUPID.
I never fail to be amused at all the untruths and ill informed comments made about this issue. But I guess the correct information doesn't serve the protestors’ cause very well so let's stick to the same old incorrect arguments as they're great for stirring up opposition.
I guess it's true what they say. Never underestimate the power of stupid and ill informed people in large numbers. Ooops you've got me doing it now.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, they could build this on Victoria Avenue with an attractive enclosed courtyard and landscaped gardens.
Cheap to purchase and develop.
Enough land to include adequate parking for staff and visitors.
Close to both mainline rail locations.
Bus stops just outside.
And with the money they will save, they could build something special and take an eyesore off the map!
I am sure the current landowners would be happy to sell up quickly and cheaply and, you never know, the council might even offer a grant if Havens help to transform the area.
Does anyone know if Vic Avenue has been seriously looked at?
Interested Local
says...
2:12pm Fri 19 Oct 12
Comments such as:
I hope people will now boycott any fund raising by the organisation, who are very rich and do not need public funding.
I wonder how much they have wasted on this activity?
It would have been far better to have spent the donations by the public on care and not on appeals and publicity for building on green belt land.
Just prove my point.
And the answer to that question:
I also wanted to say that not a penny of the £450,000 spent so far has come from the charity's general funds and no care or any aspect of our service has been comprimised as a result. The costs so far have been paid for from a legacy left to the charity expressly for the purpose of building a new adult hospice and can only be used for this purpose.
Which is publicly available information if you take the time to research before engaging keyboard.
I hope people will now boycott any fund raising by the organisation, who are very rich and do not need public funding.
I wonder how much they have wasted on this activity?
It would have been far better to have spent the donations by the public on care and not on appeals and publicity for building on green belt land.
Just prove my point.
And the answer to that question:
I also wanted to say that not a penny of the £450,000 spent so far has come from the charity's general funds and no care or any aspect of our service has been comprimised as a result. The costs so far have been paid for from a legacy left to the charity expressly for the purpose of building a new adult hospice and can only be used for this purpose.
Which is publicly available information if you take the time to research before engaging keyboard.
Interested Local
says...
2:15pm Fri 19 Oct 12
And to the people who seem to be experts in what Palliative Care is all about and where it should be carried out, I invite you to read the panning application from Havens Hospices which should answer all your questions concerning the 212 sites looked at by Havens.
The answer to most questions asked here and opinions expressed is publicly available if you bother to look.
The answer to most questions asked here and opinions expressed is publicly available if you bother to look.
HK9597
says...
2:18pm Fri 19 Oct 12
Interested Local wrote:How much is the legacy?
Comments such as:
I hope people will now boycott any fund raising by the organisation, who are very rich and do not need public funding.
I wonder how much they have wasted on this activity?
It would have been far better to have spent the donations by the public on care and not on appeals and publicity for building on green belt land.
Just prove my point.
And the answer to that question:
I also wanted to say that not a penny of the £450,000 spent so far has come from the charity's general funds and no care or any aspect of our service has been comprimised as a result. The costs so far have been paid for from a legacy left to the charity expressly for the purpose of building a new adult hospice and can only be used for this purpose.
Which is publicly available information if you take the time to research before engaging keyboard.
How long will it be before the legacy has been spent and they DO have to dip into the charity's general funds? Surely there is not an endless pot of money!
Interested Local
says...
2:19pm Fri 19 Oct 12
I will now "attempt" to withdraw from this thread because I'm tired of debating the same old points with people who don't bother to ensure the accuracy of their comments. I respect and would fight for everyone's right to their opinion so long as that opinion is well informed.
Interested Local
says...
2:20pm Fri 19 Oct 12
HK9597 wrote:Contact Havens and ask them. I'm sure they will be happy to discuss this with you.
Interested Local wrote:How much is the legacy?
Comments such as:
I hope people will now boycott any fund raising by the organisation, who are very rich and do not need public funding.
I wonder how much they have wasted on this activity?
It would have been far better to have spent the donations by the public on care and not on appeals and publicity for building on green belt land.
Just prove my point.
And the answer to that question:
I also wanted to say that not a penny of the £450,000 spent so far has come from the charity's general funds and no care or any aspect of our service has been comprimised as a result. The costs so far have been paid for from a legacy left to the charity expressly for the purpose of building a new adult hospice and can only be used for this purpose.
Which is publicly available information if you take the time to research before engaging keyboard.
How long will it be before the legacy has been spent and they DO have to dip into the charity's general funds? Surely there is not an endless pot of money!
HK9597
says...
2:39pm Fri 19 Oct 12
Interested Local wrote:Does it not bother you that they may have blown some, most, all of the legacy money and may have to dip into general funds (donations)?
HK9597 wrote:Contact Havens and ask them. I'm sure they will be happy to discuss this with you.
Interested Local wrote:How much is the legacy?
Comments such as:
I hope people will now boycott any fund raising by the organisation, who are very rich and do not need public funding.
I wonder how much they have wasted on this activity?
It would have been far better to have spent the donations by the public on care and not on appeals and publicity for building on green belt land.
Just prove my point.
And the answer to that question:
I also wanted to say that not a penny of the £450,000 spent so far has come from the charity's general funds and no care or any aspect of our service has been comprimised as a result. The costs so far have been paid for from a legacy left to the charity expressly for the purpose of building a new adult hospice and can only be used for this purpose.
Which is publicly available information if you take the time to research before engaging keyboard.
How long will it be before the legacy has been spent and they DO have to dip into the charity's general funds? Surely there is not an endless pot of money!
The important point to read from the quote, is that the legacy was left 'expressly for the purpose of building a new adult hospice'. And in that respect they have failed as they have nothing to show for the £450,000 they have spent, except for some bad PR.
They might as well have thrown the money down the drain!
barneldu
says...
8:53pm Fri 19 Oct 12
openspace wrote:The reason the offices and the hospice will be in one building is simply because it will save a great deal of money. Running two buildings is far more expensive than one.
I was one of those who originally signed the petition in favour of the hospice. I now wish I hadn't. Whilst there is no doubt of the very great value of hospices, I originally thought, like many others, that we were supporting a 16 bed hospice. It now appears that what is being sought is a much bigger prestige complex, including office space for fund raising staff, etc, ( these could be based anywhere in the area in any one of the huge number of empty office buildings that are available. When asked what "plan B" was for the hospice, a spokesman said there was no plan B, this was the only possible site.
QUESTION, if this land did not exist, what would the hospice supporters do then, give up ???.
I suspect they would find somewhere else, even if it meant separating the hospice from office accommodation, ( not unreasonable or impractical ). That is what they should do now. They are, I suspect, losing many supporters like myself , who will no longer donate to their cause because of their intransigence.
Elephantman2
says...
9:53am Sat 20 Oct 12
Interested Local wrote:How ill informed do you need to be to be deemed stupid by you Mr Arrogant.
Eric Whim wrote:Hmmmm I suppose if your arguments have no substance and have been proven time and time again to be untrue, and if you're ignorant of the actual facts, you'll have to resort to ridiculing those passionate people who are in command of the correct information. The number of questions posed on such threads as this (such as why not build on the Green Belt land around Little Havens) just goes to prove that the majority of people, although also being passionate which I respect, have not read the vast amounts of publicly available information. Sadly this also seems to be the case for some of those in positions of power.
barneldu wrote:careful you don't hammer that keyboard too hard in your apoplectic fury.....
I AM NOW BEGINNING TO GET VERY VERY ANGRY. HOW MANY TIMES DOES THIS HAVE TO BE SAID. HAVENS HAVE NOT SPENT ANY MONEY ON THIS PROJECT THAT WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN SPENT ON PATIENT CARE. THE MONEY USED WAS A LEGACY LEFT TO THE HOSPICE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GETTING THE PLANS DRAWN UP AND APPROVED. THE PEOPLE WHO INSIST THAT HAVENS ARE USING FUNDS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN FOR PATIENT CARE HAVE HEARD THIS SEVERAL TIMES BUT HAVE CHOSEN TO IGNORE IT. THEY ARE EITHER BLIND, DEAF OR JUST PLAIN STUPID.
I never fail to be amused at all the untruths and ill informed comments made about this issue. But I guess the correct information doesn't serve the protestors’ cause very well so let's stick to the same old incorrect arguments as they're great for stirring up opposition.
I guess it's true what they say. Never underestimate the power of stupid and ill informed people in large numbers. Ooops you've got me doing it now.
Belton Way is Green Belt - fact
Somebody wants to build on it - fact
Many people object to this land being built on - fact
What else do those ill informed, stupid people need to know that is relevant to the loss of this piece of green belt?
elaen
says...
3:38pm Mon 22 Oct 12
I stopped giving money to this charity. They shouldnt be spending donations on fighting this case. They shouldnt have bought the land knowing they wouldnt get planning permission. They bought it knowing that but thought they would get it changed by gathering public support. If they had built elsewhere the building would be in use by now.
elaen
says...
3:56pm Mon 22 Oct 12
Interested Local wrote:so how much is the legacy in total. Will there be enough to cover the continued fight for planning permission and to build the hospice. £450000 is an incredible amount of money spent on nothing. Imagine what £450000 could have supplied in a new hospice had it not been wasted.
Comments such as:
I hope people will now boycott any fund raising by the organisation, who are very rich and do not need public funding.
I wonder how much they have wasted on this activity?
It would have been far better to have spent the donations by the public on care and not on appeals and publicity for building on green belt land.
Just prove my point.
And the answer to that question:
I also wanted to say that not a penny of the £450,000 spent so far has come from the charity's general funds and no care or any aspect of our service has been comprimised as a result. The costs so far have been paid for from a legacy left to the charity expressly for the purpose of building a new adult hospice and can only be used for this purpose.
Which is publicly available information if you take the time to research before engaging keyboard.
RobertFS
says...
4:44pm Mon 22 Oct 12
barneldu wrote:a poor application of funds despite the intent.
I AM NOW BEGINNING TO GET VERY VERY ANGRY. HOW MANY TIMES DOES THIS HAVE TO BE SAID. HAVENS HAVE NOT SPENT ANY MONEY ON THIS PROJECT THAT WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN SPENT ON PATIENT CARE. THE MONEY USED WAS A LEGACY LEFT TO THE HOSPICE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GETTING THE PLANS DRAWN UP AND APPROVED. THE PEOPLE WHO INSIST THAT HAVENS ARE USING FUNDS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN FOR PATIENT CARE HAVE HEARD THIS SEVERAL TIMES BUT HAVE CHOSEN TO IGNORE IT. THEY ARE EITHER BLIND, DEAF OR JUST PLAIN STUPID.
there are other sites - eastern esplanade and vic ave and probably others.
what this has done has caused so much upset and annoyance against a worthwhile charity that does wonders in the community.
i have looked at a number of the TWITS who have tweeted. they have just jumped on a bandwagon from in many cases outside the area and therefore have no knowledge of the circumstances.
accept it havens your cause is great but you should not be lookink to develop a massive enterprise on belton hills
jolllyboy
says...
6:56pm Mon 22 Oct 12
How about down Thorpe Bay there's plenty of green space there and they have had nothing built there for ages whilst we have lost part of Hadleigh Farm area. OR how about the Salvation Army field just before Hadleigh on the left where the tall trees that fell down during the hurricane that they promised to replant and never did. OR how about Rochford Gold Club grounds - plenty of space there too.
InTheKnowOk
says...
8:48pm Tue 23 Oct 12
Wasn't the Virgin Centre built on Green belt land? ..
InTheKnowOk
says...
8:52pm Tue 23 Oct 12
Also the new fire station and car showroom adjacent to it .. If they can build these on green belt then why not the hospice? .. A hospice is far more worthy than a car showroom surely?
rhowes
says...
3:05pm Wed 24 Oct 12
Virgin Centre was under Castle Point!
We in Southend have voted NO!
Localism as it should be.
We in Southend have voted NO!
Localism as it should be.
a127scamera says...
2:43pm Wed 17 Oct 12