Election night shock as two Castle Point councillors lose seats

Echo: Bill Dick Bill Dick

Two long serving Tory councillors have lost their seats in an election night shock.

William Dick lost his Thundersley seat to Jamie Hunt of UKIP by around 150 votes.

Meanwhile Colin Riley lost his South Benfleet seat to UKIP candidate, Alan Bayley. 

Tory leader, Pam Challis said she was 'extremely disappointed' for the people of Essex.  

Click here for results

Comments (72)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:58am Fri 3 May 13

marybelle says...

Mrs Challis should take her head out of the bag and realize her traditional voters have turned to a party that is advertising exactly what they want Europe kicked into touch, immigration controlled properly and the ever present fear removed about being classed as racist because we complain about immigration, this view is very common amongst all races already in this country, plus Law and Order being balanced properly with an acceptance that victims are more important than bloody criminals, and stop the continual bashing of The Police by the BBC and the Tories Mrs May.
Also the current Banking policy of cutting interest rates for savers caused by the Government pouring money into the economy needs to be looked at so people save and invest in the future of the country, instead of people putting their savings under the bed in fear of losing them.
Well done UKIP, Mrs Challis dear the coalition has been a vote winner to all the other parties, and a vote loser to the future General election.
Mrs Challis should take her head out of the bag and realize her traditional voters have turned to a party that is advertising exactly what they want Europe kicked into touch, immigration controlled properly and the ever present fear removed about being classed as racist because we complain about immigration, this view is very common amongst all races already in this country, plus Law and Order being balanced properly with an acceptance that victims are more important than bloody criminals, and stop the continual bashing of The Police by the BBC and the Tories Mrs May. Also the current Banking policy of cutting interest rates for savers caused by the Government pouring money into the economy needs to be looked at so people save and invest in the future of the country, instead of people putting their savings under the bed in fear of losing them. Well done UKIP, Mrs Challis dear the coalition has been a vote winner to all the other parties, and a vote loser to the future General election. marybelle

8:50am Fri 3 May 13

upset says...

marybelle wrote:
Mrs Challis should take her head out of the bag and realize her traditional voters have turned to a party that is advertising exactly what they want Europe kicked into touch, immigration controlled properly and the ever present fear removed about being classed as racist because we complain about immigration, this view is very common amongst all races already in this country, plus Law and Order being balanced properly with an acceptance that victims are more important than bloody criminals, and stop the continual bashing of The Police by the BBC and the Tories Mrs May.
Also the current Banking policy of cutting interest rates for savers caused by the Government pouring money into the economy needs to be looked at so people save and invest in the future of the country, instead of people putting their savings under the bed in fear of losing them.
Well done UKIP, Mrs Challis dear the coalition has been a vote winner to all the other parties, and a vote loser to the future General election.
HERE HERE !!!
[quote][p][bold]marybelle[/bold] wrote: Mrs Challis should take her head out of the bag and realize her traditional voters have turned to a party that is advertising exactly what they want Europe kicked into touch, immigration controlled properly and the ever present fear removed about being classed as racist because we complain about immigration, this view is very common amongst all races already in this country, plus Law and Order being balanced properly with an acceptance that victims are more important than bloody criminals, and stop the continual bashing of The Police by the BBC and the Tories Mrs May. Also the current Banking policy of cutting interest rates for savers caused by the Government pouring money into the economy needs to be looked at so people save and invest in the future of the country, instead of people putting their savings under the bed in fear of losing them. Well done UKIP, Mrs Challis dear the coalition has been a vote winner to all the other parties, and a vote loser to the future General election.[/p][/quote]HERE HERE !!! upset

9:14am Fri 3 May 13

GentleGiant says...

We had no information from the conservatives or Labour.

The only party to promote themselves was UKIP - that is why they won.

Simples.
We had no information from the conservatives or Labour. The only party to promote themselves was UKIP - that is why they won. Simples. GentleGiant

9:37am Fri 3 May 13

iknowbetter says...

upset wrote:
marybelle wrote:
Mrs Challis should take her head out of the bag and realize her traditional voters have turned to a party that is advertising exactly what they want Europe kicked into touch, immigration controlled properly and the ever present fear removed about being classed as racist because we complain about immigration, this view is very common amongst all races already in this country, plus Law and Order being balanced properly with an acceptance that victims are more important than bloody criminals, and stop the continual bashing of The Police by the BBC and the Tories Mrs May.
Also the current Banking policy of cutting interest rates for savers caused by the Government pouring money into the economy needs to be looked at so people save and invest in the future of the country, instead of people putting their savings under the bed in fear of losing them.
Well done UKIP, Mrs Challis dear the coalition has been a vote winner to all the other parties, and a vote loser to the future General election.
HERE HERE !!!
Shock horror, I AGREE TO!! I voted Ukip for the first time ever, and for exactly the reasons you have pointed out Maybelle. I'm not against the Tories in general but after 3 going on 4 years in power what have they achieved, we have lost our triple A rating, narrowly escaped a triple recession, public service at its lowest levels in history. Rising crime and immigration. What can they do in one year they couldnt achieved in 3?
Personally having a clear out of the castle point Tories might be a start.
[quote][p][bold]upset[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]marybelle[/bold] wrote: Mrs Challis should take her head out of the bag and realize her traditional voters have turned to a party that is advertising exactly what they want Europe kicked into touch, immigration controlled properly and the ever present fear removed about being classed as racist because we complain about immigration, this view is very common amongst all races already in this country, plus Law and Order being balanced properly with an acceptance that victims are more important than bloody criminals, and stop the continual bashing of The Police by the BBC and the Tories Mrs May. Also the current Banking policy of cutting interest rates for savers caused by the Government pouring money into the economy needs to be looked at so people save and invest in the future of the country, instead of people putting their savings under the bed in fear of losing them. Well done UKIP, Mrs Challis dear the coalition has been a vote winner to all the other parties, and a vote loser to the future General election.[/p][/quote]HERE HERE !!![/p][/quote]Shock horror, I AGREE TO!! I voted Ukip for the first time ever, and for exactly the reasons you have pointed out Maybelle. I'm not against the Tories in general but after 3 going on 4 years in power what have they achieved, we have lost our triple A rating, narrowly escaped a triple recession, public service at its lowest levels in history. Rising crime and immigration. What can they do in one year they couldnt achieved in 3? Personally having a clear out of the castle point Tories might be a start. iknowbetter

9:43am Fri 3 May 13

benfleet101 says...

Personally, we have a local Green Belt/developer issue. Going by the conversation on the local 'save the green belt' Facebook campaign groups, after the Conservative treatment of local opinion, members were switching to Ukip in droves.
Personally, we have a local Green Belt/developer issue. Going by the conversation on the local 'save the green belt' Facebook campaign groups, after the Conservative treatment of local opinion, members were switching to Ukip in droves. benfleet101

9:56am Fri 3 May 13

marybelle says...

benfleet101 wrote:
Personally, we have a local Green Belt/developer issue. Going by the conversation on the local 'save the green belt' Facebook campaign groups, after the Conservative treatment of local opinion, members were switching to Ukip in droves.
It is well beyond a green belt issue, us former Tory's have had enough of using wood hip wallpaper to hide the cracks.
[quote][p][bold]benfleet101[/bold] wrote: Personally, we have a local Green Belt/developer issue. Going by the conversation on the local 'save the green belt' Facebook campaign groups, after the Conservative treatment of local opinion, members were switching to Ukip in droves.[/p][/quote]It is well beyond a green belt issue, us former Tory's have had enough of using wood hip wallpaper to hide the cracks. marybelle

10:32am Fri 3 May 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

benfleet101 wrote:
Personally, we have a local Green Belt/developer issue. Going by the conversation on the local 'save the green belt' Facebook campaign groups, after the Conservative treatment of local opinion, members were switching to Ukip in droves.
You think UKIP are green?
[quote][p][bold]benfleet101[/bold] wrote: Personally, we have a local Green Belt/developer issue. Going by the conversation on the local 'save the green belt' Facebook campaign groups, after the Conservative treatment of local opinion, members were switching to Ukip in droves.[/p][/quote]You think UKIP are green? Shoebury_Cyclist

10:37am Fri 3 May 13

Red Under Your Bed says...

"It is not UKIP per se which I find terrifying. It is the fearful and introspective mood of the people which their election represents, and the reaction it may provoke from other parties.

It would be a mistake to think that people vote for UKIP purely because of its anti-immigration and anti-EU policies. UKIP reflects openly every nasty, grudging, spite and hate filled attitude behind the policies which have shaped the Welfare Reform Bill and its assault on those who are unable to work...the disabled, the redundant, those without sufficient eduction or training. All those who need the help and support of society, but whom our political parties are pushing yet further to its margins. The irony is that by blaming immigrants, UKIP gives the marginalised an enemy. What the Labour Party needs to do now, is to give them a friend and champion"

Well said, Mary Lockhart
"It is not UKIP per se which I find terrifying. It is the fearful and introspective mood of the people which their election represents, and the reaction it may provoke from other parties. It would be a mistake to think that people vote for UKIP purely because of its anti-immigration and anti-EU policies. UKIP reflects openly every nasty, grudging, spite and hate filled attitude behind the policies which have shaped the Welfare Reform Bill and its assault on those who are unable to work...the disabled, the redundant, those without sufficient eduction or training. All those who need the help and support of society, but whom our political parties are pushing yet further to its margins. The irony is that by blaming immigrants, UKIP gives the marginalised an enemy. What the Labour Party needs to do now, is to give them a friend and champion" Well said, Mary Lockhart Red Under Your Bed

12:31pm Fri 3 May 13

Sim0n says...

iknowbetter wrote:
upset wrote:
marybelle wrote:
Mrs Challis should take her head out of the bag and realize her traditional voters have turned to a party that is advertising exactly what they want Europe kicked into touch, immigration controlled properly and the ever present fear removed about being classed as racist because we complain about immigration, this view is very common amongst all races already in this country, plus Law and Order being balanced properly with an acceptance that victims are more important than bloody criminals, and stop the continual bashing of The Police by the BBC and the Tories Mrs May.
Also the current Banking policy of cutting interest rates for savers caused by the Government pouring money into the economy needs to be looked at so people save and invest in the future of the country, instead of people putting their savings under the bed in fear of losing them.
Well done UKIP, Mrs Challis dear the coalition has been a vote winner to all the other parties, and a vote loser to the future General election.
HERE HERE !!!
Shock horror, I AGREE TO!! I voted Ukip for the first time ever, and for exactly the reasons you have pointed out Maybelle. I'm not against the Tories in general but after 3 going on 4 years in power what have they achieved, we have lost our triple A rating, narrowly escaped a triple recession, public service at its lowest levels in history. Rising crime and immigration. What can they do in one year they couldnt achieved in 3?
Personally having a clear out of the castle point Tories might be a start.
You are missing the point
It was not a General Election yesterday but an Essex County Election so all the valid points made here are nothing to do with Essex Cllrs.
I am surprised you had no leaflets from the Tories.
[quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]upset[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]marybelle[/bold] wrote: Mrs Challis should take her head out of the bag and realize her traditional voters have turned to a party that is advertising exactly what they want Europe kicked into touch, immigration controlled properly and the ever present fear removed about being classed as racist because we complain about immigration, this view is very common amongst all races already in this country, plus Law and Order being balanced properly with an acceptance that victims are more important than bloody criminals, and stop the continual bashing of The Police by the BBC and the Tories Mrs May. Also the current Banking policy of cutting interest rates for savers caused by the Government pouring money into the economy needs to be looked at so people save and invest in the future of the country, instead of people putting their savings under the bed in fear of losing them. Well done UKIP, Mrs Challis dear the coalition has been a vote winner to all the other parties, and a vote loser to the future General election.[/p][/quote]HERE HERE !!![/p][/quote]Shock horror, I AGREE TO!! I voted Ukip for the first time ever, and for exactly the reasons you have pointed out Maybelle. I'm not against the Tories in general but after 3 going on 4 years in power what have they achieved, we have lost our triple A rating, narrowly escaped a triple recession, public service at its lowest levels in history. Rising crime and immigration. What can they do in one year they couldnt achieved in 3? Personally having a clear out of the castle point Tories might be a start.[/p][/quote]You are missing the point It was not a General Election yesterday but an Essex County Election so all the valid points made here are nothing to do with Essex Cllrs. I am surprised you had no leaflets from the Tories. Sim0n

12:55pm Fri 3 May 13

iknowbetter says...

Sim0n wrote:
iknowbetter wrote:
upset wrote:
marybelle wrote:
Mrs Challis should take her head out of the bag and realize her traditional voters have turned to a party that is advertising exactly what they want Europe kicked into touch, immigration controlled properly and the ever present fear removed about being classed as racist because we complain about immigration, this view is very common amongst all races already in this country, plus Law and Order being balanced properly with an acceptance that victims are more important than bloody criminals, and stop the continual bashing of The Police by the BBC and the Tories Mrs May.
Also the current Banking policy of cutting interest rates for savers caused by the Government pouring money into the economy needs to be looked at so people save and invest in the future of the country, instead of people putting their savings under the bed in fear of losing them.
Well done UKIP, Mrs Challis dear the coalition has been a vote winner to all the other parties, and a vote loser to the future General election.
HERE HERE !!!
Shock horror, I AGREE TO!! I voted Ukip for the first time ever, and for exactly the reasons you have pointed out Maybelle. I'm not against the Tories in general but after 3 going on 4 years in power what have they achieved, we have lost our triple A rating, narrowly escaped a triple recession, public service at its lowest levels in history. Rising crime and immigration. What can they do in one year they couldnt achieved in 3?
Personally having a clear out of the castle point Tories might be a start.
You are missing the point
It was not a General Election yesterday but an Essex County Election so all the valid points made here are nothing to do with Essex Cllrs.
I am surprised you had no leaflets from the Tories.
Simon I'm fully aware it is a local and not general election. The point is local Councils are governed by Government policy. Local elections are a way for voters to express their feelings towards Government. In this case UKIP took many seats, their policies or some of their policies are a way of showing the current Government how the people are feeling. I dont for one minute feel they will get into Government but it should show them that a change in their policies are needed if they want to stay in Government at the next election.
[quote][p][bold]Sim0n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]upset[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]marybelle[/bold] wrote: Mrs Challis should take her head out of the bag and realize her traditional voters have turned to a party that is advertising exactly what they want Europe kicked into touch, immigration controlled properly and the ever present fear removed about being classed as racist because we complain about immigration, this view is very common amongst all races already in this country, plus Law and Order being balanced properly with an acceptance that victims are more important than bloody criminals, and stop the continual bashing of The Police by the BBC and the Tories Mrs May. Also the current Banking policy of cutting interest rates for savers caused by the Government pouring money into the economy needs to be looked at so people save and invest in the future of the country, instead of people putting their savings under the bed in fear of losing them. Well done UKIP, Mrs Challis dear the coalition has been a vote winner to all the other parties, and a vote loser to the future General election.[/p][/quote]HERE HERE !!![/p][/quote]Shock horror, I AGREE TO!! I voted Ukip for the first time ever, and for exactly the reasons you have pointed out Maybelle. I'm not against the Tories in general but after 3 going on 4 years in power what have they achieved, we have lost our triple A rating, narrowly escaped a triple recession, public service at its lowest levels in history. Rising crime and immigration. What can they do in one year they couldnt achieved in 3? Personally having a clear out of the castle point Tories might be a start.[/p][/quote]You are missing the point It was not a General Election yesterday but an Essex County Election so all the valid points made here are nothing to do with Essex Cllrs. I am surprised you had no leaflets from the Tories.[/p][/quote]Simon I'm fully aware it is a local and not general election. The point is local Councils are governed by Government policy. Local elections are a way for voters to express their feelings towards Government. In this case UKIP took many seats, their policies or some of their policies are a way of showing the current Government how the people are feeling. I dont for one minute feel they will get into Government but it should show them that a change in their policies are needed if they want to stay in Government at the next election. iknowbetter

1:03pm Fri 3 May 13

Sim0n says...

benfleet101 wrote:
Personally, we have a local Green Belt/developer issue. Going by the conversation on the local 'save the green belt' Facebook campaign groups, after the Conservative treatment of local opinion, members were switching to Ukip in droves.
What do you mean
[quote][p][bold]benfleet101[/bold] wrote: Personally, we have a local Green Belt/developer issue. Going by the conversation on the local 'save the green belt' Facebook campaign groups, after the Conservative treatment of local opinion, members were switching to Ukip in droves.[/p][/quote]What do you mean Sim0n

1:09pm Fri 3 May 13

Sim0n says...

iknowbetter wrote:
Sim0n wrote:
iknowbetter wrote:
upset wrote:
marybelle wrote:
Mrs Challis should take her head out of the bag and realize her traditional voters have turned to a party that is advertising exactly what they want Europe kicked into touch, immigration controlled properly and the ever present fear removed about being classed as racist because we complain about immigration, this view is very common amongst all races already in this country, plus Law and Order being balanced properly with an acceptance that victims are more important than bloody criminals, and stop the continual bashing of The Police by the BBC and the Tories Mrs May.
Also the current Banking policy of cutting interest rates for savers caused by the Government pouring money into the economy needs to be looked at so people save and invest in the future of the country, instead of people putting their savings under the bed in fear of losing them.
Well done UKIP, Mrs Challis dear the coalition has been a vote winner to all the other parties, and a vote loser to the future General election.
HERE HERE !!!
Shock horror, I AGREE TO!! I voted Ukip for the first time ever, and for exactly the reasons you have pointed out Maybelle. I'm not against the Tories in general but after 3 going on 4 years in power what have they achieved, we have lost our triple A rating, narrowly escaped a triple recession, public service at its lowest levels in history. Rising crime and immigration. What can they do in one year they couldnt achieved in 3?
Personally having a clear out of the castle point Tories might be a start.
You are missing the point
It was not a General Election yesterday but an Essex County Election so all the valid points made here are nothing to do with Essex Cllrs.
I am surprised you had no leaflets from the Tories.
Simon I'm fully aware it is a local and not general election. The point is local Councils are governed by Government policy. Local elections are a way for voters to express their feelings towards Government. In this case UKIP took many seats, their policies or some of their policies are a way of showing the current Government how the people are feeling. I dont for one minute feel they will get into Government but it should show them that a change in their policies are needed if they want to stay in Government at the next election.
I agree with you the current Government need to listen
[quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sim0n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]upset[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]marybelle[/bold] wrote: Mrs Challis should take her head out of the bag and realize her traditional voters have turned to a party that is advertising exactly what they want Europe kicked into touch, immigration controlled properly and the ever present fear removed about being classed as racist because we complain about immigration, this view is very common amongst all races already in this country, plus Law and Order being balanced properly with an acceptance that victims are more important than bloody criminals, and stop the continual bashing of The Police by the BBC and the Tories Mrs May. Also the current Banking policy of cutting interest rates for savers caused by the Government pouring money into the economy needs to be looked at so people save and invest in the future of the country, instead of people putting their savings under the bed in fear of losing them. Well done UKIP, Mrs Challis dear the coalition has been a vote winner to all the other parties, and a vote loser to the future General election.[/p][/quote]HERE HERE !!![/p][/quote]Shock horror, I AGREE TO!! I voted Ukip for the first time ever, and for exactly the reasons you have pointed out Maybelle. I'm not against the Tories in general but after 3 going on 4 years in power what have they achieved, we have lost our triple A rating, narrowly escaped a triple recession, public service at its lowest levels in history. Rising crime and immigration. What can they do in one year they couldnt achieved in 3? Personally having a clear out of the castle point Tories might be a start.[/p][/quote]You are missing the point It was not a General Election yesterday but an Essex County Election so all the valid points made here are nothing to do with Essex Cllrs. I am surprised you had no leaflets from the Tories.[/p][/quote]Simon I'm fully aware it is a local and not general election. The point is local Councils are governed by Government policy. Local elections are a way for voters to express their feelings towards Government. In this case UKIP took many seats, their policies or some of their policies are a way of showing the current Government how the people are feeling. I dont for one minute feel they will get into Government but it should show them that a change in their policies are needed if they want to stay in Government at the next election.[/p][/quote]I agree with you the current Government need to listen Sim0n

1:36pm Fri 3 May 13

iknowbetter says...

Red Under Your Bed wrote:
"It is not UKIP per se which I find terrifying. It is the fearful and introspective mood of the people which their election represents, and the reaction it may provoke from other parties.

It would be a mistake to think that people vote for UKIP purely because of its anti-immigration and anti-EU policies. UKIP reflects openly every nasty, grudging, spite and hate filled attitude behind the policies which have shaped the Welfare Reform Bill and its assault on those who are unable to work...the disabled, the redundant, those without sufficient eduction or training. All those who need the help and support of society, but whom our political parties are pushing yet further to its margins. The irony is that by blaming immigrants, UKIP gives the marginalised an enemy. What the Labour Party needs to do now, is to give them a friend and champion"

Well said, Mary Lockhart
Its not friends that the people need its action.
The previous and current governments are so far detached from reality its terrifying. For example, giving control of those on housing benefits the funds to pay their own rent instead of the money going straight to the landlord is madness, I see what they are trying to do in allowing these people the freedom and control to budget their funds ready fro when they go out to work and have to manage their funds, but in reality the rents are not getting paid because they are not able to manage it themselves, (for whatever reasons), the landlord loses his property because he cant pay the mortgage and the tenant loses his home.It was never going to work and is just a small example of how the people in power think.
[quote][p][bold]Red Under Your Bed[/bold] wrote: "It is not UKIP per se which I find terrifying. It is the fearful and introspective mood of the people which their election represents, and the reaction it may provoke from other parties. It would be a mistake to think that people vote for UKIP purely because of its anti-immigration and anti-EU policies. UKIP reflects openly every nasty, grudging, spite and hate filled attitude behind the policies which have shaped the Welfare Reform Bill and its assault on those who are unable to work...the disabled, the redundant, those without sufficient eduction or training. All those who need the help and support of society, but whom our political parties are pushing yet further to its margins. The irony is that by blaming immigrants, UKIP gives the marginalised an enemy. What the Labour Party needs to do now, is to give them a friend and champion" Well said, Mary Lockhart[/p][/quote]Its not friends that the people need its action. The previous and current governments are so far detached from reality its terrifying. For example, giving control of those on housing benefits the funds to pay their own rent instead of the money going straight to the landlord is madness, I see what they are trying to do in allowing these people the freedom and control to budget their funds ready fro when they go out to work and have to manage their funds, but in reality the rents are not getting paid because they are not able to manage it themselves, (for whatever reasons), the landlord loses his property because he cant pay the mortgage and the tenant loses his home.It was never going to work and is just a small example of how the people in power think. iknowbetter

1:41pm Fri 3 May 13

John T Pharro says...

Actually UKIP gained 2 and lost 1 in Castle Point. Brian Wood switched to UKIP having previously been CIIP and won the Canvey East Ward seat so actually the CIIP gained as David Blackwell was elected for the CIIP.
In the West Ward Ray Howard was re-elected with just a 300 majority. The runner up was Brian May for the CIIP. the UKIP party came 3rd.
Far from the CIIP vote collapsing it actually stood ground at the very least and you could say gained.
I have no sympathy for the Conservatives in the East Ward as they fielded a candidate who is a mainland councillor who voted in favour of the overdevelopment on Canvey Supply and development on Thorney Bay, but did not put that in his election literature so to me has no interest in Canvey residents and their concerns on these issue at all.
That this government should listen to the reason for the UKIP vote is correct so should the politicians who represent Canvey on local and county issues.
Actually UKIP gained 2 and lost 1 in Castle Point. Brian Wood switched to UKIP having previously been CIIP and won the Canvey East Ward seat so actually the CIIP gained as David Blackwell was elected for the CIIP. In the West Ward Ray Howard was re-elected with just a 300 majority. The runner up was Brian May for the CIIP. the UKIP party came 3rd. Far from the CIIP vote collapsing it actually stood ground at the very least and you could say gained. I have no sympathy for the Conservatives in the East Ward as they fielded a candidate who is a mainland councillor who voted in favour of the overdevelopment on Canvey Supply and development on Thorney Bay, but did not put that in his election literature so to me has no interest in Canvey residents and their concerns on these issue at all. That this government should listen to the reason for the UKIP vote is correct so should the politicians who represent Canvey on local and county issues. John T Pharro

2:05pm Fri 3 May 13

Sim0n says...

John T Pharro wrote:
Actually UKIP gained 2 and lost 1 in Castle Point. Brian Wood switched to UKIP having previously been CIIP and won the Canvey East Ward seat so actually the CIIP gained as David Blackwell was elected for the CIIP.
In the West Ward Ray Howard was re-elected with just a 300 majority. The runner up was Brian May for the CIIP. the UKIP party came 3rd.
Far from the CIIP vote collapsing it actually stood ground at the very least and you could say gained.
I have no sympathy for the Conservatives in the East Ward as they fielded a candidate who is a mainland councillor who voted in favour of the overdevelopment on Canvey Supply and development on Thorney Bay, but did not put that in his election literature so to me has no interest in Canvey residents and their concerns on these issue at all.
That this government should listen to the reason for the UKIP vote is correct so should the politicians who represent Canvey on local and county issues.
John
that cllr lives on Canvey, planning decisions are complicated and the development of those 2 sites on Canvey was originally agreed when Dave Blackwell was in charge and he is a Canvey man.
There are many factors why development in Castle Point is going on and the consequences of non achievement are well known so who is irresponsible ?
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: Actually UKIP gained 2 and lost 1 in Castle Point. Brian Wood switched to UKIP having previously been CIIP and won the Canvey East Ward seat so actually the CIIP gained as David Blackwell was elected for the CIIP. In the West Ward Ray Howard was re-elected with just a 300 majority. The runner up was Brian May for the CIIP. the UKIP party came 3rd. Far from the CIIP vote collapsing it actually stood ground at the very least and you could say gained. I have no sympathy for the Conservatives in the East Ward as they fielded a candidate who is a mainland councillor who voted in favour of the overdevelopment on Canvey Supply and development on Thorney Bay, but did not put that in his election literature so to me has no interest in Canvey residents and their concerns on these issue at all. That this government should listen to the reason for the UKIP vote is correct so should the politicians who represent Canvey on local and county issues.[/p][/quote]John that cllr lives on Canvey, planning decisions are complicated and the development of those 2 sites on Canvey was originally agreed when Dave Blackwell was in charge and he is a Canvey man. There are many factors why development in Castle Point is going on and the consequences of non achievement are well known so who is irresponsible ? Sim0n

2:12pm Fri 3 May 13

John T Pharro says...

Sim0n wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Actually UKIP gained 2 and lost 1 in Castle Point. Brian Wood switched to UKIP having previously been CIIP and won the Canvey East Ward seat so actually the CIIP gained as David Blackwell was elected for the CIIP.
In the West Ward Ray Howard was re-elected with just a 300 majority. The runner up was Brian May for the CIIP. the UKIP party came 3rd.
Far from the CIIP vote collapsing it actually stood ground at the very least and you could say gained.
I have no sympathy for the Conservatives in the East Ward as they fielded a candidate who is a mainland councillor who voted in favour of the overdevelopment on Canvey Supply and development on Thorney Bay, but did not put that in his election literature so to me has no interest in Canvey residents and their concerns on these issue at all.
That this government should listen to the reason for the UKIP vote is correct so should the politicians who represent Canvey on local and county issues.
John
that cllr lives on Canvey, planning decisions are complicated and the development of those 2 sites on Canvey was originally agreed when Dave Blackwell was in charge and he is a Canvey man.
There are many factors why development in Castle Point is going on and the consequences of non achievement are well known so who is irresponsible ?
It is not the building on Canvey Supply that residents are opposed to it is the OVER DEVELOPMENT. The original Borough plan was for 35 properties on this plot instead 99 have been passed including 4 storey flats. The great cry from the government is there are not enough family homes so why flats, flats, flats? Councillor Cross voted in favour. As to Thorney Bay if David Blackwell was in favour, but now thinks it is wrong because of safety and residents opposition and voted against how do you make that wrong?
[quote][p][bold]Sim0n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: Actually UKIP gained 2 and lost 1 in Castle Point. Brian Wood switched to UKIP having previously been CIIP and won the Canvey East Ward seat so actually the CIIP gained as David Blackwell was elected for the CIIP. In the West Ward Ray Howard was re-elected with just a 300 majority. The runner up was Brian May for the CIIP. the UKIP party came 3rd. Far from the CIIP vote collapsing it actually stood ground at the very least and you could say gained. I have no sympathy for the Conservatives in the East Ward as they fielded a candidate who is a mainland councillor who voted in favour of the overdevelopment on Canvey Supply and development on Thorney Bay, but did not put that in his election literature so to me has no interest in Canvey residents and their concerns on these issue at all. That this government should listen to the reason for the UKIP vote is correct so should the politicians who represent Canvey on local and county issues.[/p][/quote]John that cllr lives on Canvey, planning decisions are complicated and the development of those 2 sites on Canvey was originally agreed when Dave Blackwell was in charge and he is a Canvey man. There are many factors why development in Castle Point is going on and the consequences of non achievement are well known so who is irresponsible ?[/p][/quote]It is not the building on Canvey Supply that residents are opposed to it is the OVER DEVELOPMENT. The original Borough plan was for 35 properties on this plot instead 99 have been passed including 4 storey flats. The great cry from the government is there are not enough family homes so why flats, flats, flats? Councillor Cross voted in favour. As to Thorney Bay if David Blackwell was in favour, but now thinks it is wrong because of safety and residents opposition and voted against how do you make that wrong? John T Pharro

2:12pm Fri 3 May 13

John T Pharro says...

John T Pharro wrote:
Sim0n wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Actually UKIP gained 2 and lost 1 in Castle Point. Brian Wood switched to UKIP having previously been CIIP and won the Canvey East Ward seat so actually the CIIP gained as David Blackwell was elected for the CIIP.
In the West Ward Ray Howard was re-elected with just a 300 majority. The runner up was Brian May for the CIIP. the UKIP party came 3rd.
Far from the CIIP vote collapsing it actually stood ground at the very least and you could say gained.
I have no sympathy for the Conservatives in the East Ward as they fielded a candidate who is a mainland councillor who voted in favour of the overdevelopment on Canvey Supply and development on Thorney Bay, but did not put that in his election literature so to me has no interest in Canvey residents and their concerns on these issue at all.
That this government should listen to the reason for the UKIP vote is correct so should the politicians who represent Canvey on local and county issues.
John
that cllr lives on Canvey, planning decisions are complicated and the development of those 2 sites on Canvey was originally agreed when Dave Blackwell was in charge and he is a Canvey man.
There are many factors why development in Castle Point is going on and the consequences of non achievement are well known so who is irresponsible ?
It is not the building on Canvey Supply that residents are opposed to it is the OVER DEVELOPMENT. The original Borough plan was for 35 properties on this plot instead 99 have been passed including 4 storey flats. The great cry from the government is there are not enough family homes so why flats, flats, flats? Councillor Cross voted in favour. As to Thorney Bay if David Blackwell was in favour, but now thinks it is wrong because of safety and residents opposition and voted against how do you make that wrong?
Ps bet you live on the mainland.
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sim0n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: Actually UKIP gained 2 and lost 1 in Castle Point. Brian Wood switched to UKIP having previously been CIIP and won the Canvey East Ward seat so actually the CIIP gained as David Blackwell was elected for the CIIP. In the West Ward Ray Howard was re-elected with just a 300 majority. The runner up was Brian May for the CIIP. the UKIP party came 3rd. Far from the CIIP vote collapsing it actually stood ground at the very least and you could say gained. I have no sympathy for the Conservatives in the East Ward as they fielded a candidate who is a mainland councillor who voted in favour of the overdevelopment on Canvey Supply and development on Thorney Bay, but did not put that in his election literature so to me has no interest in Canvey residents and their concerns on these issue at all. That this government should listen to the reason for the UKIP vote is correct so should the politicians who represent Canvey on local and county issues.[/p][/quote]John that cllr lives on Canvey, planning decisions are complicated and the development of those 2 sites on Canvey was originally agreed when Dave Blackwell was in charge and he is a Canvey man. There are many factors why development in Castle Point is going on and the consequences of non achievement are well known so who is irresponsible ?[/p][/quote]It is not the building on Canvey Supply that residents are opposed to it is the OVER DEVELOPMENT. The original Borough plan was for 35 properties on this plot instead 99 have been passed including 4 storey flats. The great cry from the government is there are not enough family homes so why flats, flats, flats? Councillor Cross voted in favour. As to Thorney Bay if David Blackwell was in favour, but now thinks it is wrong because of safety and residents opposition and voted against how do you make that wrong?[/p][/quote]Ps bet you live on the mainland. John T Pharro

2:22pm Fri 3 May 13

G Man says...

John T Pharro wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Sim0n wrote:
John T Pharro wrote: Actually UKIP gained 2 and lost 1 in Castle Point. Brian Wood switched to UKIP having previously been CIIP and won the Canvey East Ward seat so actually the CIIP gained as David Blackwell was elected for the CIIP. In the West Ward Ray Howard was re-elected with just a 300 majority. The runner up was Brian May for the CIIP. the UKIP party came 3rd. Far from the CIIP vote collapsing it actually stood ground at the very least and you could say gained. I have no sympathy for the Conservatives in the East Ward as they fielded a candidate who is a mainland councillor who voted in favour of the overdevelopment on Canvey Supply and development on Thorney Bay, but did not put that in his election literature so to me has no interest in Canvey residents and their concerns on these issue at all. That this government should listen to the reason for the UKIP vote is correct so should the politicians who represent Canvey on local and county issues.
John that cllr lives on Canvey, planning decisions are complicated and the development of those 2 sites on Canvey was originally agreed when Dave Blackwell was in charge and he is a Canvey man. There are many factors why development in Castle Point is going on and the consequences of non achievement are well known so who is irresponsible ?
It is not the building on Canvey Supply that residents are opposed to it is the OVER DEVELOPMENT. The original Borough plan was for 35 properties on this plot instead 99 have been passed including 4 storey flats. The great cry from the government is there are not enough family homes so why flats, flats, flats? Councillor Cross voted in favour. As to Thorney Bay if David Blackwell was in favour, but now thinks it is wrong because of safety and residents opposition and voted against how do you make that wrong?
Ps bet you live on the mainland.
John. Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing.
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sim0n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: Actually UKIP gained 2 and lost 1 in Castle Point. Brian Wood switched to UKIP having previously been CIIP and won the Canvey East Ward seat so actually the CIIP gained as David Blackwell was elected for the CIIP. In the West Ward Ray Howard was re-elected with just a 300 majority. The runner up was Brian May for the CIIP. the UKIP party came 3rd. Far from the CIIP vote collapsing it actually stood ground at the very least and you could say gained. I have no sympathy for the Conservatives in the East Ward as they fielded a candidate who is a mainland councillor who voted in favour of the overdevelopment on Canvey Supply and development on Thorney Bay, but did not put that in his election literature so to me has no interest in Canvey residents and their concerns on these issue at all. That this government should listen to the reason for the UKIP vote is correct so should the politicians who represent Canvey on local and county issues.[/p][/quote]John that cllr lives on Canvey, planning decisions are complicated and the development of those 2 sites on Canvey was originally agreed when Dave Blackwell was in charge and he is a Canvey man. There are many factors why development in Castle Point is going on and the consequences of non achievement are well known so who is irresponsible ?[/p][/quote]It is not the building on Canvey Supply that residents are opposed to it is the OVER DEVELOPMENT. The original Borough plan was for 35 properties on this plot instead 99 have been passed including 4 storey flats. The great cry from the government is there are not enough family homes so why flats, flats, flats? Councillor Cross voted in favour. As to Thorney Bay if David Blackwell was in favour, but now thinks it is wrong because of safety and residents opposition and voted against how do you make that wrong?[/p][/quote]Ps bet you live on the mainland.[/p][/quote]John. Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing. G Man

2:53pm Fri 3 May 13

Sim0n says...

John T Pharro wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Sim0n wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Actually UKIP gained 2 and lost 1 in Castle Point. Brian Wood switched to UKIP having previously been CIIP and won the Canvey East Ward seat so actually the CIIP gained as David Blackwell was elected for the CIIP.
In the West Ward Ray Howard was re-elected with just a 300 majority. The runner up was Brian May for the CIIP. the UKIP party came 3rd.
Far from the CIIP vote collapsing it actually stood ground at the very least and you could say gained.
I have no sympathy for the Conservatives in the East Ward as they fielded a candidate who is a mainland councillor who voted in favour of the overdevelopment on Canvey Supply and development on Thorney Bay, but did not put that in his election literature so to me has no interest in Canvey residents and their concerns on these issue at all.
That this government should listen to the reason for the UKIP vote is correct so should the politicians who represent Canvey on local and county issues.
John
that cllr lives on Canvey, planning decisions are complicated and the development of those 2 sites on Canvey was originally agreed when Dave Blackwell was in charge and he is a Canvey man.
There are many factors why development in Castle Point is going on and the consequences of non achievement are well known so who is irresponsible ?
It is not the building on Canvey Supply that residents are opposed to it is the OVER DEVELOPMENT. The original Borough plan was for 35 properties on this plot instead 99 have been passed including 4 storey flats. The great cry from the government is there are not enough family homes so why flats, flats, flats? Councillor Cross voted in favour. As to Thorney Bay if David Blackwell was in favour, but now thinks it is wrong because of safety and residents opposition and voted against how do you make that wrong?
Ps bet you live on the mainland.
Yes I do live on the mainland part of Castle Point, but I do not let that affect my judgement, and I also I think Dave Blackwell will be a good County Cllr.
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sim0n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: Actually UKIP gained 2 and lost 1 in Castle Point. Brian Wood switched to UKIP having previously been CIIP and won the Canvey East Ward seat so actually the CIIP gained as David Blackwell was elected for the CIIP. In the West Ward Ray Howard was re-elected with just a 300 majority. The runner up was Brian May for the CIIP. the UKIP party came 3rd. Far from the CIIP vote collapsing it actually stood ground at the very least and you could say gained. I have no sympathy for the Conservatives in the East Ward as they fielded a candidate who is a mainland councillor who voted in favour of the overdevelopment on Canvey Supply and development on Thorney Bay, but did not put that in his election literature so to me has no interest in Canvey residents and their concerns on these issue at all. That this government should listen to the reason for the UKIP vote is correct so should the politicians who represent Canvey on local and county issues.[/p][/quote]John that cllr lives on Canvey, planning decisions are complicated and the development of those 2 sites on Canvey was originally agreed when Dave Blackwell was in charge and he is a Canvey man. There are many factors why development in Castle Point is going on and the consequences of non achievement are well known so who is irresponsible ?[/p][/quote]It is not the building on Canvey Supply that residents are opposed to it is the OVER DEVELOPMENT. The original Borough plan was for 35 properties on this plot instead 99 have been passed including 4 storey flats. The great cry from the government is there are not enough family homes so why flats, flats, flats? Councillor Cross voted in favour. As to Thorney Bay if David Blackwell was in favour, but now thinks it is wrong because of safety and residents opposition and voted against how do you make that wrong?[/p][/quote]Ps bet you live on the mainland.[/p][/quote]Yes I do live on the mainland part of Castle Point, but I do not let that affect my judgement, and I also I think Dave Blackwell will be a good County Cllr. Sim0n

3:13pm Fri 3 May 13

John T Pharro says...

Sim0n wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Sim0n wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Actually UKIP gained 2 and lost 1 in Castle Point. Brian Wood switched to UKIP having previously been CIIP and won the Canvey East Ward seat so actually the CIIP gained as David Blackwell was elected for the CIIP.
In the West Ward Ray Howard was re-elected with just a 300 majority. The runner up was Brian May for the CIIP. the UKIP party came 3rd.
Far from the CIIP vote collapsing it actually stood ground at the very least and you could say gained.
I have no sympathy for the Conservatives in the East Ward as they fielded a candidate who is a mainland councillor who voted in favour of the overdevelopment on Canvey Supply and development on Thorney Bay, but did not put that in his election literature so to me has no interest in Canvey residents and their concerns on these issue at all.
That this government should listen to the reason for the UKIP vote is correct so should the politicians who represent Canvey on local and county issues.
John
that cllr lives on Canvey, planning decisions are complicated and the development of those 2 sites on Canvey was originally agreed when Dave Blackwell was in charge and he is a Canvey man.
There are many factors why development in Castle Point is going on and the consequences of non achievement are well known so who is irresponsible ?
It is not the building on Canvey Supply that residents are opposed to it is the OVER DEVELOPMENT. The original Borough plan was for 35 properties on this plot instead 99 have been passed including 4 storey flats. The great cry from the government is there are not enough family homes so why flats, flats, flats? Councillor Cross voted in favour. As to Thorney Bay if David Blackwell was in favour, but now thinks it is wrong because of safety and residents opposition and voted against how do you make that wrong?
Ps bet you live on the mainland.
Yes I do live on the mainland part of Castle Point, but I do not let that affect my judgement, and I also I think Dave Blackwell will be a good County Cllr.
So if you lived on Canvey would you vote for a councillor who voted for over development at Canvey Supply nearly 3 times the number on the original local plan? If he voted for it and thought it was such a good idea why did he not tell the electorate? This is the clearest possible proof to me that the majority Councillors on the mainland couldn't careless about Canvey. If this was Benfleet, Hadleigh or Thundersly this would never have been approved.
[quote][p][bold]Sim0n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sim0n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: Actually UKIP gained 2 and lost 1 in Castle Point. Brian Wood switched to UKIP having previously been CIIP and won the Canvey East Ward seat so actually the CIIP gained as David Blackwell was elected for the CIIP. In the West Ward Ray Howard was re-elected with just a 300 majority. The runner up was Brian May for the CIIP. the UKIP party came 3rd. Far from the CIIP vote collapsing it actually stood ground at the very least and you could say gained. I have no sympathy for the Conservatives in the East Ward as they fielded a candidate who is a mainland councillor who voted in favour of the overdevelopment on Canvey Supply and development on Thorney Bay, but did not put that in his election literature so to me has no interest in Canvey residents and their concerns on these issue at all. That this government should listen to the reason for the UKIP vote is correct so should the politicians who represent Canvey on local and county issues.[/p][/quote]John that cllr lives on Canvey, planning decisions are complicated and the development of those 2 sites on Canvey was originally agreed when Dave Blackwell was in charge and he is a Canvey man. There are many factors why development in Castle Point is going on and the consequences of non achievement are well known so who is irresponsible ?[/p][/quote]It is not the building on Canvey Supply that residents are opposed to it is the OVER DEVELOPMENT. The original Borough plan was for 35 properties on this plot instead 99 have been passed including 4 storey flats. The great cry from the government is there are not enough family homes so why flats, flats, flats? Councillor Cross voted in favour. As to Thorney Bay if David Blackwell was in favour, but now thinks it is wrong because of safety and residents opposition and voted against how do you make that wrong?[/p][/quote]Ps bet you live on the mainland.[/p][/quote]Yes I do live on the mainland part of Castle Point, but I do not let that affect my judgement, and I also I think Dave Blackwell will be a good County Cllr.[/p][/quote]So if you lived on Canvey would you vote for a councillor who voted for over development at Canvey Supply nearly 3 times the number on the original local plan? If he voted for it and thought it was such a good idea why did he not tell the electorate? This is the clearest possible proof to me that the majority Councillors on the mainland couldn't careless about Canvey. If this was Benfleet, Hadleigh or Thundersly this would never have been approved. John T Pharro

3:32pm Fri 3 May 13

G Man says...

John T Pharro wrote:
Sim0n wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Sim0n wrote:
John T Pharro wrote: Actually UKIP gained 2 and lost 1 in Castle Point. Brian Wood switched to UKIP having previously been CIIP and won the Canvey East Ward seat so actually the CIIP gained as David Blackwell was elected for the CIIP. In the West Ward Ray Howard was re-elected with just a 300 majority. The runner up was Brian May for the CIIP. the UKIP party came 3rd. Far from the CIIP vote collapsing it actually stood ground at the very least and you could say gained. I have no sympathy for the Conservatives in the East Ward as they fielded a candidate who is a mainland councillor who voted in favour of the overdevelopment on Canvey Supply and development on Thorney Bay, but did not put that in his election literature so to me has no interest in Canvey residents and their concerns on these issue at all. That this government should listen to the reason for the UKIP vote is correct so should the politicians who represent Canvey on local and county issues.
John that cllr lives on Canvey, planning decisions are complicated and the development of those 2 sites on Canvey was originally agreed when Dave Blackwell was in charge and he is a Canvey man. There are many factors why development in Castle Point is going on and the consequences of non achievement are well known so who is irresponsible ?
It is not the building on Canvey Supply that residents are opposed to it is the OVER DEVELOPMENT. The original Borough plan was for 35 properties on this plot instead 99 have been passed including 4 storey flats. The great cry from the government is there are not enough family homes so why flats, flats, flats? Councillor Cross voted in favour. As to Thorney Bay if David Blackwell was in favour, but now thinks it is wrong because of safety and residents opposition and voted against how do you make that wrong?
Ps bet you live on the mainland.
Yes I do live on the mainland part of Castle Point, but I do not let that affect my judgement, and I also I think Dave Blackwell will be a good County Cllr.
So if you lived on Canvey would you vote for a councillor who voted for over development at Canvey Supply nearly 3 times the number on the original local plan? If he voted for it and thought it was such a good idea why did he not tell the electorate? This is the clearest possible proof to me that the majority Councillors on the mainland couldn't careless about Canvey. If this was Benfleet, Hadleigh or Thundersly this would never have been approved.
John, I repeat, beware of wolves in sheeps clothing!
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sim0n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sim0n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: Actually UKIP gained 2 and lost 1 in Castle Point. Brian Wood switched to UKIP having previously been CIIP and won the Canvey East Ward seat so actually the CIIP gained as David Blackwell was elected for the CIIP. In the West Ward Ray Howard was re-elected with just a 300 majority. The runner up was Brian May for the CIIP. the UKIP party came 3rd. Far from the CIIP vote collapsing it actually stood ground at the very least and you could say gained. I have no sympathy for the Conservatives in the East Ward as they fielded a candidate who is a mainland councillor who voted in favour of the overdevelopment on Canvey Supply and development on Thorney Bay, but did not put that in his election literature so to me has no interest in Canvey residents and their concerns on these issue at all. That this government should listen to the reason for the UKIP vote is correct so should the politicians who represent Canvey on local and county issues.[/p][/quote]John that cllr lives on Canvey, planning decisions are complicated and the development of those 2 sites on Canvey was originally agreed when Dave Blackwell was in charge and he is a Canvey man. There are many factors why development in Castle Point is going on and the consequences of non achievement are well known so who is irresponsible ?[/p][/quote]It is not the building on Canvey Supply that residents are opposed to it is the OVER DEVELOPMENT. The original Borough plan was for 35 properties on this plot instead 99 have been passed including 4 storey flats. The great cry from the government is there are not enough family homes so why flats, flats, flats? Councillor Cross voted in favour. As to Thorney Bay if David Blackwell was in favour, but now thinks it is wrong because of safety and residents opposition and voted against how do you make that wrong?[/p][/quote]Ps bet you live on the mainland.[/p][/quote]Yes I do live on the mainland part of Castle Point, but I do not let that affect my judgement, and I also I think Dave Blackwell will be a good County Cllr.[/p][/quote]So if you lived on Canvey would you vote for a councillor who voted for over development at Canvey Supply nearly 3 times the number on the original local plan? If he voted for it and thought it was such a good idea why did he not tell the electorate? This is the clearest possible proof to me that the majority Councillors on the mainland couldn't careless about Canvey. If this was Benfleet, Hadleigh or Thundersly this would never have been approved.[/p][/quote]John, I repeat, beware of wolves in sheeps clothing! G Man

3:38pm Fri 3 May 13

iknowbetter says...

John as much as I would like to agree with you, most of the developments being approved is because of the carrot the Government have dangled, cutting back on the council budgets but promises of money from affordable housing is not a local thing it comes from Government. Local Councils have their hands tied. The only fault is CPBC failed to put in place a core strategy which left the door wide open for appeals to the government planning inspectors without just cause to deny planning. For me personally I feel the local Council were fully aware of the consequences of not having a core strategy in place and can use this to deflect blame on over development onto the government instead of themselves.So its a win win for them, they get the money for affordable housing and keep the voters happy.
John as much as I would like to agree with you, most of the developments being approved is because of the carrot the Government have dangled, cutting back on the council budgets but promises of money from affordable housing is not a local thing it comes from Government. Local Councils have their hands tied. The only fault is CPBC failed to put in place a core strategy which left the door wide open for appeals to the government planning inspectors without just cause to deny planning. For me personally I feel the local Council were fully aware of the consequences of not having a core strategy in place and can use this to deflect blame on over development onto the government instead of themselves.So its a win win for them, they get the money for affordable housing and keep the voters happy. iknowbetter

3:46pm Fri 3 May 13

Sim0n says...

If I lived on Canvey and I knew the facts I would vote for who I thought was right for me and my local area, which maybe be different from your decission and I have no problem with that, would I vote for someone who puts their head in the sand and let others make the hard decissions and then moan to others about those who do, then the answer is No.
If you asked me would I live in one of the new flats on the point the answer is Yes.
If I lived on Canvey and I knew the facts I would vote for who I thought was right for me and my local area, which maybe be different from your decission and I have no problem with that, would I vote for someone who puts their head in the sand and let others make the hard decissions and then moan to others about those who do, then the answer is No. If you asked me would I live in one of the new flats on the point the answer is Yes. Sim0n

4:20pm Fri 3 May 13

Rich.,Carol says...

Red Under Your Bed wrote:
"It is not UKIP per se which I find terrifying. It is the fearful and introspective mood of the people which their election represents, and the reaction it may provoke from other parties.

It would be a mistake to think that people vote for UKIP purely because of its anti-immigration and anti-EU policies. UKIP reflects openly every nasty, grudging, spite and hate filled attitude behind the policies which have shaped the Welfare Reform Bill and its assault on those who are unable to work...the disabled, the redundant, those without sufficient eduction or training. All those who need the help and support of society, but whom our political parties are pushing yet further to its margins. The irony is that by blaming immigrants, UKIP gives the marginalised an enemy. What the Labour Party needs to do now, is to give them a friend and champion"

Well said, Mary Lockhart
What a load of rubbish this person talks. Labour slaughted this country and left the Torys to clean up. The torys are NOT listening to what the real sensible people want from a government. Well done UKIP, you stand for what everyone wants in this country except for clowns.
[quote][p][bold]Red Under Your Bed[/bold] wrote: "It is not UKIP per se which I find terrifying. It is the fearful and introspective mood of the people which their election represents, and the reaction it may provoke from other parties. It would be a mistake to think that people vote for UKIP purely because of its anti-immigration and anti-EU policies. UKIP reflects openly every nasty, grudging, spite and hate filled attitude behind the policies which have shaped the Welfare Reform Bill and its assault on those who are unable to work...the disabled, the redundant, those without sufficient eduction or training. All those who need the help and support of society, but whom our political parties are pushing yet further to its margins. The irony is that by blaming immigrants, UKIP gives the marginalised an enemy. What the Labour Party needs to do now, is to give them a friend and champion" Well said, Mary Lockhart[/p][/quote]What a load of rubbish this person talks. Labour slaughted this country and left the Torys to clean up. The torys are NOT listening to what the real sensible people want from a government. Well done UKIP, you stand for what everyone wants in this country except for clowns. Rich.,Carol

5:38pm Fri 3 May 13

ddtthundersley says...

Mr Dick head of planning bullied the Chase development through against a majority of local voters who were against this development. Little wonder he has been voted out ...... people have memories .... Karma !!!
Mr Dick head of planning bullied the Chase development through against a majority of local voters who were against this development. Little wonder he has been voted out ...... people have memories .... Karma !!! ddtthundersley

5:51pm Fri 3 May 13

marybelle says...

iknowbetter wrote:
Sim0n wrote:
iknowbetter wrote:
upset wrote:
marybelle wrote:
Mrs Challis should take her head out of the bag and realize her traditional voters have turned to a party that is advertising exactly what they want Europe kicked into touch, immigration controlled properly and the ever present fear removed about being classed as racist because we complain about immigration, this view is very common amongst all races already in this country, plus Law and Order being balanced properly with an acceptance that victims are more important than bloody criminals, and stop the continual bashing of The Police by the BBC and the Tories Mrs May.
Also the current Banking policy of cutting interest rates for savers caused by the Government pouring money into the economy needs to be looked at so people save and invest in the future of the country, instead of people putting their savings under the bed in fear of losing them.
Well done UKIP, Mrs Challis dear the coalition has been a vote winner to all the other parties, and a vote loser to the future General election.
HERE HERE !!!
Shock horror, I AGREE TO!! I voted Ukip for the first time ever, and for exactly the reasons you have pointed out Maybelle. I'm not against the Tories in general but after 3 going on 4 years in power what have they achieved, we have lost our triple A rating, narrowly escaped a triple recession, public service at its lowest levels in history. Rising crime and immigration. What can they do in one year they couldnt achieved in 3?
Personally having a clear out of the castle point Tories might be a start.
You are missing the point
It was not a General Election yesterday but an Essex County Election so all the valid points made here are nothing to do with Essex Cllrs.
I am surprised you had no leaflets from the Tories.
Simon I'm fully aware it is a local and not general election. The point is local Councils are governed by Government policy. Local elections are a way for voters to express their feelings towards Government. In this case UKIP took many seats, their policies or some of their policies are a way of showing the current Government how the people are feeling. I dont for one minute feel they will get into Government but it should show them that a change in their policies are needed if they want to stay in Government at the next election.
Agreed the other persons blind attitude is typical of a Politician.

Only at any election do we get an opportunity to express and show our concerns.

And the only way of showing this awful government is to indicate to them they are out of touch!

And immigration is a big big issue to everyone living in this country be it they are black, brown,yellow or white.

Only a misguided Tory or a left wing agitator believe there is no problem.
[quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sim0n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]upset[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]marybelle[/bold] wrote: Mrs Challis should take her head out of the bag and realize her traditional voters have turned to a party that is advertising exactly what they want Europe kicked into touch, immigration controlled properly and the ever present fear removed about being classed as racist because we complain about immigration, this view is very common amongst all races already in this country, plus Law and Order being balanced properly with an acceptance that victims are more important than bloody criminals, and stop the continual bashing of The Police by the BBC and the Tories Mrs May. Also the current Banking policy of cutting interest rates for savers caused by the Government pouring money into the economy needs to be looked at so people save and invest in the future of the country, instead of people putting their savings under the bed in fear of losing them. Well done UKIP, Mrs Challis dear the coalition has been a vote winner to all the other parties, and a vote loser to the future General election.[/p][/quote]HERE HERE !!![/p][/quote]Shock horror, I AGREE TO!! I voted Ukip for the first time ever, and for exactly the reasons you have pointed out Maybelle. I'm not against the Tories in general but after 3 going on 4 years in power what have they achieved, we have lost our triple A rating, narrowly escaped a triple recession, public service at its lowest levels in history. Rising crime and immigration. What can they do in one year they couldnt achieved in 3? Personally having a clear out of the castle point Tories might be a start.[/p][/quote]You are missing the point It was not a General Election yesterday but an Essex County Election so all the valid points made here are nothing to do with Essex Cllrs. I am surprised you had no leaflets from the Tories.[/p][/quote]Simon I'm fully aware it is a local and not general election. The point is local Councils are governed by Government policy. Local elections are a way for voters to express their feelings towards Government. In this case UKIP took many seats, their policies or some of their policies are a way of showing the current Government how the people are feeling. I dont for one minute feel they will get into Government but it should show them that a change in their policies are needed if they want to stay in Government at the next election.[/p][/quote]Agreed the other persons blind attitude is typical of a Politician. Only at any election do we get an opportunity to express and show our concerns. And the only way of showing this awful government is to indicate to them they are out of touch! And immigration is a big big issue to everyone living in this country be it they are black, brown,yellow or white. Only a misguided Tory or a left wing agitator believe there is no problem. marybelle

7:58pm Fri 3 May 13

WestTech says...

Bill Dick has been voted out for his disgraceful handling of the chase development.
Bill Dick has been voted out for his disgraceful handling of the chase development. WestTech

10:51pm Fri 3 May 13

EssexMan007 says...

marybelle wrote:
Mrs Challis should take her head out of the bag and realize her traditional voters have turned to a party that is advertising exactly what they want Europe kicked into touch, immigration controlled properly and the ever present fear removed about being classed as racist because we complain about immigration, this view is very common amongst all races already in this country, plus Law and Order being balanced properly with an acceptance that victims are more important than bloody criminals, and stop the continual bashing of The Police by the BBC and the Tories Mrs May.
Also the current Banking policy of cutting interest rates for savers caused by the Government pouring money into the economy needs to be looked at so people save and invest in the future of the country, instead of people putting their savings under the bed in fear of losing them.
Well done UKIP, Mrs Challis dear the coalition has been a vote winner to all the other parties, and a vote loser to the future General election.
Here here ....the current Con\Lib "Government" is a total joke & a disaster.......UKIP offers a fresh change ......good bye Nick Clegg & Hello Nigel Farage.....where have you been ???
[quote][p][bold]marybelle[/bold] wrote: Mrs Challis should take her head out of the bag and realize her traditional voters have turned to a party that is advertising exactly what they want Europe kicked into touch, immigration controlled properly and the ever present fear removed about being classed as racist because we complain about immigration, this view is very common amongst all races already in this country, plus Law and Order being balanced properly with an acceptance that victims are more important than bloody criminals, and stop the continual bashing of The Police by the BBC and the Tories Mrs May. Also the current Banking policy of cutting interest rates for savers caused by the Government pouring money into the economy needs to be looked at so people save and invest in the future of the country, instead of people putting their savings under the bed in fear of losing them. Well done UKIP, Mrs Challis dear the coalition has been a vote winner to all the other parties, and a vote loser to the future General election.[/p][/quote]Here here ....the current Con\Lib "Government" is a total joke & a disaster.......UKIP offers a fresh change ......good bye Nick Clegg & Hello Nigel Farage.....where have you been ??? EssexMan007

10:56pm Fri 3 May 13

Sensible of Leigh says...

We live in very dangerous times. The last Great Depression saw the rise of extremists who were quick to blame Jews for the economic woes. Today we have UKIP who blame immigrants. A movement which preys on the fears of people. Decent people must be on their guard before the extremists drag the country down. They might not wear black shirts but the appeal and the motives are the same
We live in very dangerous times. The last Great Depression saw the rise of extremists who were quick to blame Jews for the economic woes. Today we have UKIP who blame immigrants. A movement which preys on the fears of people. Decent people must be on their guard before the extremists drag the country down. They might not wear black shirts but the appeal and the motives are the same Sensible of Leigh

9:32am Sat 4 May 13

Red Under Your Bed says...

Rich.,Carol wrote:
Red Under Your Bed wrote:
"It is not UKIP per se which I find terrifying. It is the fearful and introspective mood of the people which their election represents, and the reaction it may provoke from other parties.

It would be a mistake to think that people vote for UKIP purely because of its anti-immigration and anti-EU policies. UKIP reflects openly every nasty, grudging, spite and hate filled attitude behind the policies which have shaped the Welfare Reform Bill and its assault on those who are unable to work...the disabled, the redundant, those without sufficient eduction or training. All those who need the help and support of society, but whom our political parties are pushing yet further to its margins. The irony is that by blaming immigrants, UKIP gives the marginalised an enemy. What the Labour Party needs to do now, is to give them a friend and champion"

Well said, Mary Lockhart
What a load of rubbish this person talks. Labour slaughted this country and left the Torys to clean up. The torys are NOT listening to what the real sensible people want from a government. Well done UKIP, you stand for what everyone wants in this country except for clowns.
UKIP is the equivalent of the BNP for people who shop at Waitrose etc.
[quote][p][bold]Rich.,Carol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Red Under Your Bed[/bold] wrote: "It is not UKIP per se which I find terrifying. It is the fearful and introspective mood of the people which their election represents, and the reaction it may provoke from other parties. It would be a mistake to think that people vote for UKIP purely because of its anti-immigration and anti-EU policies. UKIP reflects openly every nasty, grudging, spite and hate filled attitude behind the policies which have shaped the Welfare Reform Bill and its assault on those who are unable to work...the disabled, the redundant, those without sufficient eduction or training. All those who need the help and support of society, but whom our political parties are pushing yet further to its margins. The irony is that by blaming immigrants, UKIP gives the marginalised an enemy. What the Labour Party needs to do now, is to give them a friend and champion" Well said, Mary Lockhart[/p][/quote]What a load of rubbish this person talks. Labour slaughted this country and left the Torys to clean up. The torys are NOT listening to what the real sensible people want from a government. Well done UKIP, you stand for what everyone wants in this country except for clowns.[/p][/quote]UKIP is the equivalent of the BNP for people who shop at Waitrose etc. Red Under Your Bed

10:31am Sat 4 May 13

iknowbetter says...

Sensible of Leigh wrote:
We live in very dangerous times. The last Great Depression saw the rise of extremists who were quick to blame Jews for the economic woes. Today we have UKIP who blame immigrants. A movement which preys on the fears of people. Decent people must be on their guard before the extremists drag the country down. They might not wear black shirts but the appeal and the motives are the same
I'm not saying all of UKIP's policies are just or right but this current Government need to take action towards the influx of immigrants heading to this country for a free ride.
Spain have done it, Italy hand out European passports like they were going out of fashion and France are quite happy to help those camped out on their land to cross over into Britain. Why are we as a country always threatened with the European Human rights rubbish when other countries are not? Where in the world would a country, apart from Britain, is it acceptable for a non national to preach terrorism and be given a 400,000 pound house to live in and pay for their keep when they openly refuse to work? If it were you or I we would be jailed and all our benefits stopped. Where is the right in that?
[quote][p][bold]Sensible of Leigh[/bold] wrote: We live in very dangerous times. The last Great Depression saw the rise of extremists who were quick to blame Jews for the economic woes. Today we have UKIP who blame immigrants. A movement which preys on the fears of people. Decent people must be on their guard before the extremists drag the country down. They might not wear black shirts but the appeal and the motives are the same[/p][/quote]I'm not saying all of UKIP's policies are just or right but this current Government need to take action towards the influx of immigrants heading to this country for a free ride. Spain have done it, Italy hand out European passports like they were going out of fashion and France are quite happy to help those camped out on their land to cross over into Britain. Why are we as a country always threatened with the European Human rights rubbish when other countries are not? Where in the world would a country, apart from Britain, is it acceptable for a non national to preach terrorism and be given a 400,000 pound house to live in and pay for their keep when they openly refuse to work? If it were you or I we would be jailed and all our benefits stopped. Where is the right in that? iknowbetter

11:19am Sat 4 May 13

Jamie01268 says...

Dear Mr "Hot Air"
As always theres two sides to a story .I was indeed bitten twice by a German Shepherd some years ago while while doing work not in a official capacity.For some reason an unsubstantiated complaint was made and the Standards Committee found me in No breach of any Code of Conduct.If you ever put yourself forward for public office you place your head above the parapet and have to get used to some untruths being told.This is why it is so important to check all the facts before suggesting what you have regarding the leaflet as you would have discovered the truth on the matter.Kind regards
Dear Mr "Hot Air" As always theres two sides to a story .I was indeed bitten twice by a German Shepherd some years ago while while doing work not in a official capacity.For some reason an unsubstantiated complaint was made and the Standards Committee found me in No breach of any Code of Conduct.If you ever put yourself forward for public office you place your head above the parapet and have to get used to some untruths being told.This is why it is so important to check all the facts before suggesting what you have regarding the leaflet as you would have discovered the truth on the matter.Kind regards Jamie01268

11:57am Sat 4 May 13

max zorin says...

i hope this is the start of the rise of UKIP, the tories have had their chance to sort the country out and they've blown it!
i hope this is the start of the rise of UKIP, the tories have had their chance to sort the country out and they've blown it! max zorin

1:52pm Sat 4 May 13

HOT AIR says...

Jamie01268 wrote:
Dear Mr "Hot Air"
As always theres two sides to a story .I was indeed bitten twice by a German Shepherd some years ago while while doing work not in a official capacity.For some reason an unsubstantiated complaint was made and the Standards Committee found me in No breach of any Code of Conduct.If you ever put yourself forward for public office you place your head above the parapet and have to get used to some untruths being told.This is why it is so important to check all the facts before suggesting what you have regarding the leaflet as you would have discovered the truth on the matter.Kind regards
there's usually no smoke without fire although I guess your new council wages will negate the need for extorting money with menaces in the future lol
[quote][p][bold]Jamie01268[/bold] wrote: Dear Mr "Hot Air" As always theres two sides to a story .I was indeed bitten twice by a German Shepherd some years ago while while doing work not in a official capacity.For some reason an unsubstantiated complaint was made and the Standards Committee found me in No breach of any Code of Conduct.If you ever put yourself forward for public office you place your head above the parapet and have to get used to some untruths being told.This is why it is so important to check all the facts before suggesting what you have regarding the leaflet as you would have discovered the truth on the matter.Kind regards[/p][/quote]there's usually no smoke without fire although I guess your new council wages will negate the need for extorting money with menaces in the future lol HOT AIR

2:40pm Sat 4 May 13

Rochford Rob says...

max zorin wrote:
i hope this is the start of the rise of UKIP, the tories have had their chance to sort the country out and they've blown it!
Tories? what bloody Tories? Drippy Dave and his mates are limp wristed Blue Liebour Liberals.

Not fit for purpose.
[quote][p][bold]max zorin[/bold] wrote: i hope this is the start of the rise of UKIP, the tories have had their chance to sort the country out and they've blown it![/p][/quote]Tories? what bloody Tories? Drippy Dave and his mates are limp wristed Blue Liebour Liberals. Not fit for purpose. Rochford Rob

2:59pm Sat 4 May 13

Jamie01268 says...

Dear Mr "Hot Air"

You clearly have an agenda,indeed its very easy to make unsubstantiated allegations in anonymity.You obviously refuse to accept the facts and the findings of an independent Standards Committee. Nevertheless I will be contacting the Echo with reference to your last comment.I remind you of the following from The Echo "Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious."
Dear Mr "Hot Air" You clearly have an agenda,indeed its very easy to make unsubstantiated allegations in anonymity.You obviously refuse to accept the facts and the findings of an independent Standards Committee. Nevertheless I will be contacting the Echo with reference to your last comment.I remind you of the following from The Echo "Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious." Jamie01268

3:54pm Sun 5 May 13

MrFrogFace says...

Sim0n people will remember how you voted when your seat is up in a few years
Sim0n people will remember how you voted when your seat is up in a few years MrFrogFace

4:48pm Sun 5 May 13

Sim0n says...

MrFrogface
I have no regrets in my voting, I probably dislike the out come as much as you do but to do nothing is far worse.
MrFrogface I have no regrets in my voting, I probably dislike the out come as much as you do but to do nothing is far worse. Sim0n

7:49pm Sun 5 May 13

MrFrogFace says...

judging by the reactions on your face, stalling and changing your mind and your fellow cllrs dumping it on your shoulders in a way you are admitting you were whipped into your decision
judging by the reactions on your face, stalling and changing your mind and your fellow cllrs dumping it on your shoulders in a way you are admitting you were whipped into your decision MrFrogFace

7:51pm Sun 5 May 13

Sim0n says...

No I was not , if you knew me you would not have to ask.
No I was not , if you knew me you would not have to ask. Sim0n

10:15am Mon 6 May 13

Broadwaywatch says...

I wonder how the voting would have gone in Southend had we been part of it all.
I wonder how the voting would have gone in Southend had we been part of it all. Broadwaywatch

5:43pm Mon 6 May 13

John T Pharro says...

Sim0n wrote:
If I lived on Canvey and I knew the facts I would vote for who I thought was right for me and my local area, which maybe be different from your decission and I have no problem with that, would I vote for someone who puts their head in the sand and let others make the hard decissions and then moan to others about those who do, then the answer is No.
If you asked me would I live in one of the new flats on the point the answer is Yes.
So do you live in a flat now? Do you have children?
[quote][p][bold]Sim0n[/bold] wrote: If I lived on Canvey and I knew the facts I would vote for who I thought was right for me and my local area, which maybe be different from your decission and I have no problem with that, would I vote for someone who puts their head in the sand and let others make the hard decissions and then moan to others about those who do, then the answer is No. If you asked me would I live in one of the new flats on the point the answer is Yes.[/p][/quote]So do you live in a flat now? Do you have children? John T Pharro

9:11pm Mon 6 May 13

Sim0n says...

No I do not live in a flat and yes I have kids but that has no bearing on what I said, I said would I live there and the answer is still. yes.
No I do not live in a flat and yes I have kids but that has no bearing on what I said, I said would I live there and the answer is still. yes. Sim0n

9:19am Tue 7 May 13

John T Pharro says...

Sim0n wrote:
No I do not live in a flat and yes I have kids but that has no bearing on what I said, I said would I live there and the answer is still. yes.
So you think flats are a suitable property to bring children up? Care to swop your house for a flat then?
[quote][p][bold]Sim0n[/bold] wrote: No I do not live in a flat and yes I have kids but that has no bearing on what I said, I said would I live there and the answer is still. yes.[/p][/quote]So you think flats are a suitable property to bring children up? Care to swop your house for a flat then? John T Pharro

9:26am Tue 7 May 13

Sim0n says...

Stop making my words fit your argument.
I said would I like there
Stop making my words fit your argument. I said would I like there Sim0n

10:01am Tue 7 May 13

Sim0n says...

Stop making my words fit your argument.
I said would I live there, flats are not the ideal home for everyone.
Stop making my words fit your argument. I said would I live there, flats are not the ideal home for everyone. Sim0n

1:33pm Tue 7 May 13

John T Pharro says...

Sim0n wrote:
Stop making my words fit your argument.
I said would I live there, flats are not the ideal home for everyone.
Then read what I said then. I said the government said the demand was for family homes so why flats,, flat, flats which you now agree are not family homes. I also said the Conservative candidate voted in favour of the over development at Canvey Supply which was oppossed by 100s of local residents. So do you think 4 storey flats which the majority of this development of 99 properties where the original local plan showed 35 should have been passed? Unlike other developments totally oppossed by residents of Castle Point local residents supported development and instead of reflecting local residents views which were totally ignored. So why didn't Conservative candidate put this in his manifesto as he voted in favour of it?
[quote][p][bold]Sim0n[/bold] wrote: Stop making my words fit your argument. I said would I live there, flats are not the ideal home for everyone.[/p][/quote]Then read what I said then. I said the government said the demand was for family homes so why flats,, flat, flats which you now agree are not family homes. I also said the Conservative candidate voted in favour of the over development at Canvey Supply which was oppossed by 100s of local residents. So do you think 4 storey flats which the majority of this development of 99 properties where the original local plan showed 35 should have been passed? Unlike other developments totally oppossed by residents of Castle Point local residents supported development and instead of reflecting local residents views which were totally ignored. So why didn't Conservative candidate put this in his manifesto as he voted in favour of it? John T Pharro

2:34pm Tue 7 May 13

iknowbetter says...

John T Pharro wrote:
Sim0n wrote:
Stop making my words fit your argument.
I said would I live there, flats are not the ideal home for everyone.
Then read what I said then. I said the government said the demand was for family homes so why flats,, flat, flats which you now agree are not family homes. I also said the Conservative candidate voted in favour of the over development at Canvey Supply which was oppossed by 100s of local residents. So do you think 4 storey flats which the majority of this development of 99 properties where the original local plan showed 35 should have been passed? Unlike other developments totally oppossed by residents of Castle Point local residents supported development and instead of reflecting local residents views which were totally ignored. So why didn't Conservative candidate put this in his manifesto as he voted in favour of it?
I think the answer to your first question John is, flats are considered affordable housing, the Government have dangled a carrot for councils to receive funding for all affordable housing developments. In a nut shell John, MONEY!!!
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sim0n[/bold] wrote: Stop making my words fit your argument. I said would I live there, flats are not the ideal home for everyone.[/p][/quote]Then read what I said then. I said the government said the demand was for family homes so why flats,, flat, flats which you now agree are not family homes. I also said the Conservative candidate voted in favour of the over development at Canvey Supply which was oppossed by 100s of local residents. So do you think 4 storey flats which the majority of this development of 99 properties where the original local plan showed 35 should have been passed? Unlike other developments totally oppossed by residents of Castle Point local residents supported development and instead of reflecting local residents views which were totally ignored. So why didn't Conservative candidate put this in his manifesto as he voted in favour of it?[/p][/quote]I think the answer to your first question John is, flats are considered affordable housing, the Government have dangled a carrot for councils to receive funding for all affordable housing developments. In a nut shell John, MONEY!!! iknowbetter

3:15pm Tue 7 May 13

John T Pharro says...

iknowbetter wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Sim0n wrote:
Stop making my words fit your argument.
I said would I live there, flats are not the ideal home for everyone.
Then read what I said then. I said the government said the demand was for family homes so why flats,, flat, flats which you now agree are not family homes. I also said the Conservative candidate voted in favour of the over development at Canvey Supply which was oppossed by 100s of local residents. So do you think 4 storey flats which the majority of this development of 99 properties where the original local plan showed 35 should have been passed? Unlike other developments totally oppossed by residents of Castle Point local residents supported development and instead of reflecting local residents views which were totally ignored. So why didn't Conservative candidate put this in his manifesto as he voted in favour of it?
I think the answer to your first question John is, flats are considered affordable housing, the Government have dangled a carrot for councils to receive funding for all affordable housing developments. In a nut shell John, MONEY!!!
So there building affordable housing then on the green belt land in Thundersley are they? Oh no they are going to be Excutive housing aren't they. So how does that fit with your theory of MONEY? Same old story one rule for the mainland another for Canvey. Worse thing that ever happened to Canvey being forced to merge with Benfleet.
[quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sim0n[/bold] wrote: Stop making my words fit your argument. I said would I live there, flats are not the ideal home for everyone.[/p][/quote]Then read what I said then. I said the government said the demand was for family homes so why flats,, flat, flats which you now agree are not family homes. I also said the Conservative candidate voted in favour of the over development at Canvey Supply which was oppossed by 100s of local residents. So do you think 4 storey flats which the majority of this development of 99 properties where the original local plan showed 35 should have been passed? Unlike other developments totally oppossed by residents of Castle Point local residents supported development and instead of reflecting local residents views which were totally ignored. So why didn't Conservative candidate put this in his manifesto as he voted in favour of it?[/p][/quote]I think the answer to your first question John is, flats are considered affordable housing, the Government have dangled a carrot for councils to receive funding for all affordable housing developments. In a nut shell John, MONEY!!![/p][/quote]So there building affordable housing then on the green belt land in Thundersley are they? Oh no they are going to be Excutive housing aren't they. So how does that fit with your theory of MONEY? Same old story one rule for the mainland another for Canvey. Worse thing that ever happened to Canvey being forced to merge with Benfleet. John T Pharro

3:30pm Tue 7 May 13

Sim0n says...

Developers come forward with their plans and each site is different there are affordable housing on the Kiln Road site.
Developers come forward with their plans and each site is different there are affordable housing on the Kiln Road site. Sim0n

4:08pm Tue 7 May 13

iknowbetter says...

John T Pharro wrote:
iknowbetter wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Sim0n wrote:
Stop making my words fit your argument.
I said would I live there, flats are not the ideal home for everyone.
Then read what I said then. I said the government said the demand was for family homes so why flats,, flat, flats which you now agree are not family homes. I also said the Conservative candidate voted in favour of the over development at Canvey Supply which was oppossed by 100s of local residents. So do you think 4 storey flats which the majority of this development of 99 properties where the original local plan showed 35 should have been passed? Unlike other developments totally oppossed by residents of Castle Point local residents supported development and instead of reflecting local residents views which were totally ignored. So why didn't Conservative candidate put this in his manifesto as he voted in favour of it?
I think the answer to your first question John is, flats are considered affordable housing, the Government have dangled a carrot for councils to receive funding for all affordable housing developments. In a nut shell John, MONEY!!!
So there building affordable housing then on the green belt land in Thundersley are they? Oh no they are going to be Excutive housing aren't they. So how does that fit with your theory of MONEY? Same old story one rule for the mainland another for Canvey. Worse thing that ever happened to Canvey being forced to merge with Benfleet.
That's my point John. Canvey is a money making machine for the Council in terms of affordable housing, which is why in my opinion the council have one agenda when it comes to development. Simon look at the ratio of flats being built on Canvey to those being built on the mainland.
So far we have a new block, (i use the term "block" loosely), next to Nearbyes, then there is the development next to the Monico, and just along from there, there is a new block just going up. Then outside the Paddocks 2 new blocks just going up. Not sure exactly the number of accommodations this amounts to but would suggest these alone far outweigh any number of flats destined for the mainland so far. Dont forget the Canvey supply development. 99 flats planned there, add this to the Thorney bay development and I would say Canvey is seeing more then its fair share of housing that was outlined in the old core strategy wouldn't you say.
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sim0n[/bold] wrote: Stop making my words fit your argument. I said would I live there, flats are not the ideal home for everyone.[/p][/quote]Then read what I said then. I said the government said the demand was for family homes so why flats,, flat, flats which you now agree are not family homes. I also said the Conservative candidate voted in favour of the over development at Canvey Supply which was oppossed by 100s of local residents. So do you think 4 storey flats which the majority of this development of 99 properties where the original local plan showed 35 should have been passed? Unlike other developments totally oppossed by residents of Castle Point local residents supported development and instead of reflecting local residents views which were totally ignored. So why didn't Conservative candidate put this in his manifesto as he voted in favour of it?[/p][/quote]I think the answer to your first question John is, flats are considered affordable housing, the Government have dangled a carrot for councils to receive funding for all affordable housing developments. In a nut shell John, MONEY!!![/p][/quote]So there building affordable housing then on the green belt land in Thundersley are they? Oh no they are going to be Excutive housing aren't they. So how does that fit with your theory of MONEY? Same old story one rule for the mainland another for Canvey. Worse thing that ever happened to Canvey being forced to merge with Benfleet.[/p][/quote]That's my point John. Canvey is a money making machine for the Council in terms of affordable housing, which is why in my opinion the council have one agenda when it comes to development. Simon look at the ratio of flats being built on Canvey to those being built on the mainland. So far we have a new block, (i use the term "block" loosely), next to Nearbyes, then there is the development next to the Monico, and just along from there, there is a new block just going up. Then outside the Paddocks 2 new blocks just going up. Not sure exactly the number of accommodations this amounts to but would suggest these alone far outweigh any number of flats destined for the mainland so far. Dont forget the Canvey supply development. 99 flats planned there, add this to the Thorney bay development and I would say Canvey is seeing more then its fair share of housing that was outlined in the old core strategy wouldn't you say. iknowbetter

5:51pm Tue 7 May 13

John T Pharro says...

iknowbetter wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
iknowbetter wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Sim0n wrote:
Stop making my words fit your argument.
I said would I live there, flats are not the ideal home for everyone.
Then read what I said then. I said the government said the demand was for family homes so why flats,, flat, flats which you now agree are not family homes. I also said the Conservative candidate voted in favour of the over development at Canvey Supply which was oppossed by 100s of local residents. So do you think 4 storey flats which the majority of this development of 99 properties where the original local plan showed 35 should have been passed? Unlike other developments totally oppossed by residents of Castle Point local residents supported development and instead of reflecting local residents views which were totally ignored. So why didn't Conservative candidate put this in his manifesto as he voted in favour of it?
I think the answer to your first question John is, flats are considered affordable housing, the Government have dangled a carrot for councils to receive funding for all affordable housing developments. In a nut shell John, MONEY!!!
So there building affordable housing then on the green belt land in Thundersley are they? Oh no they are going to be Excutive housing aren't they. So how does that fit with your theory of MONEY? Same old story one rule for the mainland another for Canvey. Worse thing that ever happened to Canvey being forced to merge with Benfleet.
That's my point John. Canvey is a money making machine for the Council in terms of affordable housing, which is why in my opinion the council have one agenda when it comes to development. Simon look at the ratio of flats being built on Canvey to those being built on the mainland.
So far we have a new block, (i use the term "block" loosely), next to Nearbyes, then there is the development next to the Monico, and just along from there, there is a new block just going up. Then outside the Paddocks 2 new blocks just going up. Not sure exactly the number of accommodations this amounts to but would suggest these alone far outweigh any number of flats destined for the mainland so far. Dont forget the Canvey supply development. 99 flats planned there, add this to the Thorney bay development and I would say Canvey is seeing more then its fair share of housing that was outlined in the old core strategy wouldn't you say.
Yes of course I do. What do you think of the Conservative candidate? It is typical of how Castle Point treat Canvey. They are totally ignoring the reason the original core strategy was kicked out by the Inspector which is why I don't think we have anything to loose on Canvey if the government do step in.
[quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sim0n[/bold] wrote: Stop making my words fit your argument. I said would I live there, flats are not the ideal home for everyone.[/p][/quote]Then read what I said then. I said the government said the demand was for family homes so why flats,, flat, flats which you now agree are not family homes. I also said the Conservative candidate voted in favour of the over development at Canvey Supply which was oppossed by 100s of local residents. So do you think 4 storey flats which the majority of this development of 99 properties where the original local plan showed 35 should have been passed? Unlike other developments totally oppossed by residents of Castle Point local residents supported development and instead of reflecting local residents views which were totally ignored. So why didn't Conservative candidate put this in his manifesto as he voted in favour of it?[/p][/quote]I think the answer to your first question John is, flats are considered affordable housing, the Government have dangled a carrot for councils to receive funding for all affordable housing developments. In a nut shell John, MONEY!!![/p][/quote]So there building affordable housing then on the green belt land in Thundersley are they? Oh no they are going to be Excutive housing aren't they. So how does that fit with your theory of MONEY? Same old story one rule for the mainland another for Canvey. Worse thing that ever happened to Canvey being forced to merge with Benfleet.[/p][/quote]That's my point John. Canvey is a money making machine for the Council in terms of affordable housing, which is why in my opinion the council have one agenda when it comes to development. Simon look at the ratio of flats being built on Canvey to those being built on the mainland. So far we have a new block, (i use the term "block" loosely), next to Nearbyes, then there is the development next to the Monico, and just along from there, there is a new block just going up. Then outside the Paddocks 2 new blocks just going up. Not sure exactly the number of accommodations this amounts to but would suggest these alone far outweigh any number of flats destined for the mainland so far. Dont forget the Canvey supply development. 99 flats planned there, add this to the Thorney bay development and I would say Canvey is seeing more then its fair share of housing that was outlined in the old core strategy wouldn't you say.[/p][/quote]Yes of course I do. What do you think of the Conservative candidate? It is typical of how Castle Point treat Canvey. They are totally ignoring the reason the original core strategy was kicked out by the Inspector which is why I don't think we have anything to loose on Canvey if the government do step in. John T Pharro

7:29pm Tue 7 May 13

iknowbetter says...

John T Pharro wrote:
iknowbetter wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
iknowbetter wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Sim0n wrote:
Stop making my words fit your argument.
I said would I live there, flats are not the ideal home for everyone.
Then read what I said then. I said the government said the demand was for family homes so why flats,, flat, flats which you now agree are not family homes. I also said the Conservative candidate voted in favour of the over development at Canvey Supply which was oppossed by 100s of local residents. So do you think 4 storey flats which the majority of this development of 99 properties where the original local plan showed 35 should have been passed? Unlike other developments totally oppossed by residents of Castle Point local residents supported development and instead of reflecting local residents views which were totally ignored. So why didn't Conservative candidate put this in his manifesto as he voted in favour of it?
I think the answer to your first question John is, flats are considered affordable housing, the Government have dangled a carrot for councils to receive funding for all affordable housing developments. In a nut shell John, MONEY!!!
So there building affordable housing then on the green belt land in Thundersley are they? Oh no they are going to be Excutive housing aren't they. So how does that fit with your theory of MONEY? Same old story one rule for the mainland another for Canvey. Worse thing that ever happened to Canvey being forced to merge with Benfleet.
That's my point John. Canvey is a money making machine for the Council in terms of affordable housing, which is why in my opinion the council have one agenda when it comes to development. Simon look at the ratio of flats being built on Canvey to those being built on the mainland.
So far we have a new block, (i use the term "block" loosely), next to Nearbyes, then there is the development next to the Monico, and just along from there, there is a new block just going up. Then outside the Paddocks 2 new blocks just going up. Not sure exactly the number of accommodations this amounts to but would suggest these alone far outweigh any number of flats destined for the mainland so far. Dont forget the Canvey supply development. 99 flats planned there, add this to the Thorney bay development and I would say Canvey is seeing more then its fair share of housing that was outlined in the old core strategy wouldn't you say.
Yes of course I do. What do you think of the Conservative candidate? It is typical of how Castle Point treat Canvey. They are totally ignoring the reason the original core strategy was kicked out by the Inspector which is why I don't think we have anything to loose on Canvey if the government do step in.
Sadly John without a core strategy, and the Council knew and know this, then the doors are wide open to the developers, even greenbelt land isn't safe.
:::***
What do you think of the Conservative candidate? **
Do you mean the candidate for the Tory lead council leadership? OMG, things must be really bad at the Council if they think Bill Sharpe has a chance. His track record really dosn't bode well for the honest voter, personally speaking I dont trust the man but then his suspension from Council a few years back might have something to do with that. ;)
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sim0n[/bold] wrote: Stop making my words fit your argument. I said would I live there, flats are not the ideal home for everyone.[/p][/quote]Then read what I said then. I said the government said the demand was for family homes so why flats,, flat, flats which you now agree are not family homes. I also said the Conservative candidate voted in favour of the over development at Canvey Supply which was oppossed by 100s of local residents. So do you think 4 storey flats which the majority of this development of 99 properties where the original local plan showed 35 should have been passed? Unlike other developments totally oppossed by residents of Castle Point local residents supported development and instead of reflecting local residents views which were totally ignored. So why didn't Conservative candidate put this in his manifesto as he voted in favour of it?[/p][/quote]I think the answer to your first question John is, flats are considered affordable housing, the Government have dangled a carrot for councils to receive funding for all affordable housing developments. In a nut shell John, MONEY!!![/p][/quote]So there building affordable housing then on the green belt land in Thundersley are they? Oh no they are going to be Excutive housing aren't they. So how does that fit with your theory of MONEY? Same old story one rule for the mainland another for Canvey. Worse thing that ever happened to Canvey being forced to merge with Benfleet.[/p][/quote]That's my point John. Canvey is a money making machine for the Council in terms of affordable housing, which is why in my opinion the council have one agenda when it comes to development. Simon look at the ratio of flats being built on Canvey to those being built on the mainland. So far we have a new block, (i use the term "block" loosely), next to Nearbyes, then there is the development next to the Monico, and just along from there, there is a new block just going up. Then outside the Paddocks 2 new blocks just going up. Not sure exactly the number of accommodations this amounts to but would suggest these alone far outweigh any number of flats destined for the mainland so far. Dont forget the Canvey supply development. 99 flats planned there, add this to the Thorney bay development and I would say Canvey is seeing more then its fair share of housing that was outlined in the old core strategy wouldn't you say.[/p][/quote]Yes of course I do. What do you think of the Conservative candidate? It is typical of how Castle Point treat Canvey. They are totally ignoring the reason the original core strategy was kicked out by the Inspector which is why I don't think we have anything to loose on Canvey if the government do step in.[/p][/quote]Sadly John without a core strategy, and the Council knew and know this, then the doors are wide open to the developers, even greenbelt land isn't safe. :::*** What do you think of the Conservative candidate? ** Do you mean the candidate for the Tory lead council leadership? OMG, things must be really bad at the Council if they think Bill Sharpe has a chance. His track record really dosn't bode well for the honest voter, personally speaking I dont trust the man but then his suspension from Council a few years back might have something to do with that. ;) iknowbetter

9:56pm Tue 7 May 13

John T Pharro says...

iknowbetter wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
iknowbetter wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
iknowbetter wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Sim0n wrote:
Stop making my words fit your argument.
I said would I live there, flats are not the ideal home for everyone.
Then read what I said then. I said the government said the demand was for family homes so why flats,, flat, flats which you now agree are not family homes. I also said the Conservative candidate voted in favour of the over development at Canvey Supply which was oppossed by 100s of local residents. So do you think 4 storey flats which the majority of this development of 99 properties where the original local plan showed 35 should have been passed? Unlike other developments totally oppossed by residents of Castle Point local residents supported development and instead of reflecting local residents views which were totally ignored. So why didn't Conservative candidate put this in his manifesto as he voted in favour of it?
I think the answer to your first question John is, flats are considered affordable housing, the Government have dangled a carrot for councils to receive funding for all affordable housing developments. In a nut shell John, MONEY!!!
So there building affordable housing then on the green belt land in Thundersley are they? Oh no they are going to be Excutive housing aren't they. So how does that fit with your theory of MONEY? Same old story one rule for the mainland another for Canvey. Worse thing that ever happened to Canvey being forced to merge with Benfleet.
That's my point John. Canvey is a money making machine for the Council in terms of affordable housing, which is why in my opinion the council have one agenda when it comes to development. Simon look at the ratio of flats being built on Canvey to those being built on the mainland.
So far we have a new block, (i use the term "block" loosely), next to Nearbyes, then there is the development next to the Monico, and just along from there, there is a new block just going up. Then outside the Paddocks 2 new blocks just going up. Not sure exactly the number of accommodations this amounts to but would suggest these alone far outweigh any number of flats destined for the mainland so far. Dont forget the Canvey supply development. 99 flats planned there, add this to the Thorney bay development and I would say Canvey is seeing more then its fair share of housing that was outlined in the old core strategy wouldn't you say.
Yes of course I do. What do you think of the Conservative candidate? It is typical of how Castle Point treat Canvey. They are totally ignoring the reason the original core strategy was kicked out by the Inspector which is why I don't think we have anything to loose on Canvey if the government do step in.
Sadly John without a core strategy, and the Council knew and know this, then the doors are wide open to the developers, even greenbelt land isn't safe.
:::***
What do you think of the Conservative candidate? **
Do you mean the candidate for the Tory lead council leadership? OMG, things must be really bad at the Council if they think Bill Sharpe has a chance. His track record really dosn't bode well for the honest voter, personally speaking I dont trust the man but then his suspension from Council a few years back might have something to do with that. ;)
No I meant the Tory County Councillor candidate last week. You raise an interesting point about the Tory leadership matter, but has nothing to do with me. Up to them who they pick they must be aware of Councillor Sharpe's record which goes back further than a few years. Who ever is in place they will do nothing for Canvey. That said Councillor Sharpe wants rid of the cabinet system and that I am in favour of.
[quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sim0n[/bold] wrote: Stop making my words fit your argument. I said would I live there, flats are not the ideal home for everyone.[/p][/quote]Then read what I said then. I said the government said the demand was for family homes so why flats,, flat, flats which you now agree are not family homes. I also said the Conservative candidate voted in favour of the over development at Canvey Supply which was oppossed by 100s of local residents. So do you think 4 storey flats which the majority of this development of 99 properties where the original local plan showed 35 should have been passed? Unlike other developments totally oppossed by residents of Castle Point local residents supported development and instead of reflecting local residents views which were totally ignored. So why didn't Conservative candidate put this in his manifesto as he voted in favour of it?[/p][/quote]I think the answer to your first question John is, flats are considered affordable housing, the Government have dangled a carrot for councils to receive funding for all affordable housing developments. In a nut shell John, MONEY!!![/p][/quote]So there building affordable housing then on the green belt land in Thundersley are they? Oh no they are going to be Excutive housing aren't they. So how does that fit with your theory of MONEY? Same old story one rule for the mainland another for Canvey. Worse thing that ever happened to Canvey being forced to merge with Benfleet.[/p][/quote]That's my point John. Canvey is a money making machine for the Council in terms of affordable housing, which is why in my opinion the council have one agenda when it comes to development. Simon look at the ratio of flats being built on Canvey to those being built on the mainland. So far we have a new block, (i use the term "block" loosely), next to Nearbyes, then there is the development next to the Monico, and just along from there, there is a new block just going up. Then outside the Paddocks 2 new blocks just going up. Not sure exactly the number of accommodations this amounts to but would suggest these alone far outweigh any number of flats destined for the mainland so far. Dont forget the Canvey supply development. 99 flats planned there, add this to the Thorney bay development and I would say Canvey is seeing more then its fair share of housing that was outlined in the old core strategy wouldn't you say.[/p][/quote]Yes of course I do. What do you think of the Conservative candidate? It is typical of how Castle Point treat Canvey. They are totally ignoring the reason the original core strategy was kicked out by the Inspector which is why I don't think we have anything to loose on Canvey if the government do step in.[/p][/quote]Sadly John without a core strategy, and the Council knew and know this, then the doors are wide open to the developers, even greenbelt land isn't safe. :::*** What do you think of the Conservative candidate? ** Do you mean the candidate for the Tory lead council leadership? OMG, things must be really bad at the Council if they think Bill Sharpe has a chance. His track record really dosn't bode well for the honest voter, personally speaking I dont trust the man but then his suspension from Council a few years back might have something to do with that. ;)[/p][/quote]No I meant the Tory County Councillor candidate last week. You raise an interesting point about the Tory leadership matter, but has nothing to do with me. Up to them who they pick they must be aware of Councillor Sharpe's record which goes back further than a few years. Who ever is in place they will do nothing for Canvey. That said Councillor Sharpe wants rid of the cabinet system and that I am in favour of. John T Pharro

11:31pm Tue 7 May 13

iknowbetter says...

John T Pharro wrote:
iknowbetter wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
iknowbetter wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
iknowbetter wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Sim0n wrote:
Stop making my words fit your argument.
I said would I live there, flats are not the ideal home for everyone.
Then read what I said then. I said the government said the demand was for family homes so why flats,, flat, flats which you now agree are not family homes. I also said the Conservative candidate voted in favour of the over development at Canvey Supply which was oppossed by 100s of local residents. So do you think 4 storey flats which the majority of this development of 99 properties where the original local plan showed 35 should have been passed? Unlike other developments totally oppossed by residents of Castle Point local residents supported development and instead of reflecting local residents views which were totally ignored. So why didn't Conservative candidate put this in his manifesto as he voted in favour of it?
I think the answer to your first question John is, flats are considered affordable housing, the Government have dangled a carrot for councils to receive funding for all affordable housing developments. In a nut shell John, MONEY!!!
So there building affordable housing then on the green belt land in Thundersley are they? Oh no they are going to be Excutive housing aren't they. So how does that fit with your theory of MONEY? Same old story one rule for the mainland another for Canvey. Worse thing that ever happened to Canvey being forced to merge with Benfleet.
That's my point John. Canvey is a money making machine for the Council in terms of affordable housing, which is why in my opinion the council have one agenda when it comes to development. Simon look at the ratio of flats being built on Canvey to those being built on the mainland.
So far we have a new block, (i use the term "block" loosely), next to Nearbyes, then there is the development next to the Monico, and just along from there, there is a new block just going up. Then outside the Paddocks 2 new blocks just going up. Not sure exactly the number of accommodations this amounts to but would suggest these alone far outweigh any number of flats destined for the mainland so far. Dont forget the Canvey supply development. 99 flats planned there, add this to the Thorney bay development and I would say Canvey is seeing more then its fair share of housing that was outlined in the old core strategy wouldn't you say.
Yes of course I do. What do you think of the Conservative candidate? It is typical of how Castle Point treat Canvey. They are totally ignoring the reason the original core strategy was kicked out by the Inspector which is why I don't think we have anything to loose on Canvey if the government do step in.
Sadly John without a core strategy, and the Council knew and know this, then the doors are wide open to the developers, even greenbelt land isn't safe.
:::***
What do you think of the Conservative candidate? **
Do you mean the candidate for the Tory lead council leadership? OMG, things must be really bad at the Council if they think Bill Sharpe has a chance. His track record really dosn't bode well for the honest voter, personally speaking I dont trust the man but then his suspension from Council a few years back might have something to do with that. ;)
No I meant the Tory County Councillor candidate last week. You raise an interesting point about the Tory leadership matter, but has nothing to do with me. Up to them who they pick they must be aware of Councillor Sharpe's record which goes back further than a few years. Who ever is in place they will do nothing for Canvey. That said Councillor Sharpe wants rid of the cabinet system and that I am in favour of.
Sorry John I knew what you meant, just couldn't resist bringing that one up. I fail to be able to trust any Tory to be honest John, they may talk the talk but just cant walk the walk, all they seem to want to do is keep Rebecca happy which means they are followers without their own voices.
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sim0n[/bold] wrote: Stop making my words fit your argument. I said would I live there, flats are not the ideal home for everyone.[/p][/quote]Then read what I said then. I said the government said the demand was for family homes so why flats,, flat, flats which you now agree are not family homes. I also said the Conservative candidate voted in favour of the over development at Canvey Supply which was oppossed by 100s of local residents. So do you think 4 storey flats which the majority of this development of 99 properties where the original local plan showed 35 should have been passed? Unlike other developments totally oppossed by residents of Castle Point local residents supported development and instead of reflecting local residents views which were totally ignored. So why didn't Conservative candidate put this in his manifesto as he voted in favour of it?[/p][/quote]I think the answer to your first question John is, flats are considered affordable housing, the Government have dangled a carrot for councils to receive funding for all affordable housing developments. In a nut shell John, MONEY!!![/p][/quote]So there building affordable housing then on the green belt land in Thundersley are they? Oh no they are going to be Excutive housing aren't they. So how does that fit with your theory of MONEY? Same old story one rule for the mainland another for Canvey. Worse thing that ever happened to Canvey being forced to merge with Benfleet.[/p][/quote]That's my point John. Canvey is a money making machine for the Council in terms of affordable housing, which is why in my opinion the council have one agenda when it comes to development. Simon look at the ratio of flats being built on Canvey to those being built on the mainland. So far we have a new block, (i use the term "block" loosely), next to Nearbyes, then there is the development next to the Monico, and just along from there, there is a new block just going up. Then outside the Paddocks 2 new blocks just going up. Not sure exactly the number of accommodations this amounts to but would suggest these alone far outweigh any number of flats destined for the mainland so far. Dont forget the Canvey supply development. 99 flats planned there, add this to the Thorney bay development and I would say Canvey is seeing more then its fair share of housing that was outlined in the old core strategy wouldn't you say.[/p][/quote]Yes of course I do. What do you think of the Conservative candidate? It is typical of how Castle Point treat Canvey. They are totally ignoring the reason the original core strategy was kicked out by the Inspector which is why I don't think we have anything to loose on Canvey if the government do step in.[/p][/quote]Sadly John without a core strategy, and the Council knew and know this, then the doors are wide open to the developers, even greenbelt land isn't safe. :::*** What do you think of the Conservative candidate? ** Do you mean the candidate for the Tory lead council leadership? OMG, things must be really bad at the Council if they think Bill Sharpe has a chance. His track record really dosn't bode well for the honest voter, personally speaking I dont trust the man but then his suspension from Council a few years back might have something to do with that. ;)[/p][/quote]No I meant the Tory County Councillor candidate last week. You raise an interesting point about the Tory leadership matter, but has nothing to do with me. Up to them who they pick they must be aware of Councillor Sharpe's record which goes back further than a few years. Who ever is in place they will do nothing for Canvey. That said Councillor Sharpe wants rid of the cabinet system and that I am in favour of.[/p][/quote]Sorry John I knew what you meant, just couldn't resist bringing that one up. I fail to be able to trust any Tory to be honest John, they may talk the talk but just cant walk the walk, all they seem to want to do is keep Rebecca happy which means they are followers without their own voices. iknowbetter

6:52am Wed 8 May 13

Sim0n says...

LOL how wrong you are
LOL how wrong you are Sim0n

1:16pm Wed 8 May 13

iknowbetter says...

Sim0n wrote:
LOL how wrong you are
How so? I havnt seen anything so far that proves you are right with that remark Simon. On the whole the current government haven't exactly achieved anything that could prove that I'm wrong either. Promises that their austerity measures will work but since they have been in power we have lost our triple A rating, more job losses, rising crime and a double dip recession narrowly missing a triple dip recession. Public services cut to the bone. Immigration at its highest levels. Oh and the promise of a referendum over Europe, but in 2017. (wouldn't want to put money on this ever happening). It's like I have said they talk the talk but cannot walk the walk.
As for CPBC what have they achieved, didn't Ray Howard promise along with Pam Challis 1700 new jobs as a result of the road to no where, so where are all these jobs? Where is the new core strategy document? how much more money will they waste on top of the £500,00 already spent putting one together? Who took responsibility for the shambles they made of the A13 roadworks scheme and how much extra did it cost the tax payer?
[quote][p][bold]Sim0n[/bold] wrote: LOL how wrong you are[/p][/quote]How so? I havnt seen anything so far that proves you are right with that remark Simon. On the whole the current government haven't exactly achieved anything that could prove that I'm wrong either. Promises that their austerity measures will work but since they have been in power we have lost our triple A rating, more job losses, rising crime and a double dip recession narrowly missing a triple dip recession. Public services cut to the bone. Immigration at its highest levels. Oh and the promise of a referendum over Europe, but in 2017. (wouldn't want to put money on this ever happening). It's like I have said they talk the talk but cannot walk the walk. As for CPBC what have they achieved, didn't Ray Howard promise along with Pam Challis 1700 new jobs as a result of the road to no where, so where are all these jobs? Where is the new core strategy document? how much more money will they waste on top of the £500,00 already spent putting one together? Who took responsibility for the shambles they made of the A13 roadworks scheme and how much extra did it cost the tax payer? iknowbetter

1:33pm Wed 8 May 13

iknowbetter says...

Oh and how many people that live on Thorney bay actually pay council tax?
Oh and how many people that live on Thorney bay actually pay council tax? iknowbetter

6:01pm Wed 8 May 13

runwellian says...

Well done UKIP, you have my vote at the next general electionQ

Fantastic news!
Well done UKIP, you have my vote at the next general electionQ Fantastic news! runwellian

8:04pm Wed 8 May 13

John T Pharro says...

iknowbetter wrote:
Sim0n wrote:
LOL how wrong you are
How so? I havnt seen anything so far that proves you are right with that remark Simon. On the whole the current government haven't exactly achieved anything that could prove that I'm wrong either. Promises that their austerity measures will work but since they have been in power we have lost our triple A rating, more job losses, rising crime and a double dip recession narrowly missing a triple dip recession. Public services cut to the bone. Immigration at its highest levels. Oh and the promise of a referendum over Europe, but in 2017. (wouldn't want to put money on this ever happening). It's like I have said they talk the talk but cannot walk the walk.
As for CPBC what have they achieved, didn't Ray Howard promise along with Pam Challis 1700 new jobs as a result of the road to no where, so where are all these jobs? Where is the new core strategy document? how much more money will they waste on top of the £500,00 already spent putting one together? Who took responsibility for the shambles they made of the A13 roadworks scheme and how much extra did it cost the tax payer?
Plus you haven't answered my question about why the Conservative candidate left out his voting for Canvey Supply and Thorney Bay from his election flyer. At the last Neighbourhood Meeting the clear implication was that the 2nd phase of Rosscommon Way would only be built if Thorney Bay was developed. Not what the extension was for which was to ease traffic for the EXCISTING CONGESTION at the King Canute. The first phase has produced exactly nothing. No extra jobs and no traffic relief. Oh, just one thing when suddenly when under construction the 1st phase couldn't be completed because one small parcel of land had not been purchased from the owner so an "undisclosed sum" was paid to get it built. Amazing Essex County Council couldn't even get a search right. Now how does that happen?
[quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sim0n[/bold] wrote: LOL how wrong you are[/p][/quote]How so? I havnt seen anything so far that proves you are right with that remark Simon. On the whole the current government haven't exactly achieved anything that could prove that I'm wrong either. Promises that their austerity measures will work but since they have been in power we have lost our triple A rating, more job losses, rising crime and a double dip recession narrowly missing a triple dip recession. Public services cut to the bone. Immigration at its highest levels. Oh and the promise of a referendum over Europe, but in 2017. (wouldn't want to put money on this ever happening). It's like I have said they talk the talk but cannot walk the walk. As for CPBC what have they achieved, didn't Ray Howard promise along with Pam Challis 1700 new jobs as a result of the road to no where, so where are all these jobs? Where is the new core strategy document? how much more money will they waste on top of the £500,00 already spent putting one together? Who took responsibility for the shambles they made of the A13 roadworks scheme and how much extra did it cost the tax payer?[/p][/quote]Plus you haven't answered my question about why the Conservative candidate left out his voting for Canvey Supply and Thorney Bay from his election flyer. At the last Neighbourhood Meeting the clear implication was that the 2nd phase of Rosscommon Way would only be built if Thorney Bay was developed. Not what the extension was for which was to ease traffic for the EXCISTING CONGESTION at the King Canute. The first phase has produced exactly nothing. No extra jobs and no traffic relief. Oh, just one thing when suddenly when under construction the 1st phase couldn't be completed because one small parcel of land had not been purchased from the owner so an "undisclosed sum" was paid to get it built. Amazing Essex County Council couldn't even get a search right. Now how does that happen? John T Pharro

7:06pm Thu 9 May 13

Lady Melina says...

marybelle wrote:
Mrs Challis should take her head out of the bag and realize her traditional voters have turned to a party that is advertising exactly what they want Europe kicked into touch, immigration controlled properly and the ever present fear removed about being classed as racist because we complain about immigration, this view is very common amongst all races already in this country, plus Law and Order being balanced properly with an acceptance that victims are more important than bloody criminals, and stop the continual bashing of The Police by the BBC and the Tories Mrs May. Also the current Banking policy of cutting interest rates for savers caused by the Government pouring money into the economy needs to be looked at so people save and invest in the future of the country, instead of people putting their savings under the bed in fear of losing them. Well done UKIP, Mrs Challis dear the coalition has been a vote winner to all the other parties, and a vote loser to the future General election.
Marybelle,Dear, keep your head in the bag... it suiits u... Local politics is not the same as national politics... Pam Challis has worked bloody hard for Castle Point Borough Council to get it where it is...
[quote][p][bold]marybelle[/bold] wrote: Mrs Challis should take her head out of the bag and realize her traditional voters have turned to a party that is advertising exactly what they want Europe kicked into touch, immigration controlled properly and the ever present fear removed about being classed as racist because we complain about immigration, this view is very common amongst all races already in this country, plus Law and Order being balanced properly with an acceptance that victims are more important than bloody criminals, and stop the continual bashing of The Police by the BBC and the Tories Mrs May. Also the current Banking policy of cutting interest rates for savers caused by the Government pouring money into the economy needs to be looked at so people save and invest in the future of the country, instead of people putting their savings under the bed in fear of losing them. Well done UKIP, Mrs Challis dear the coalition has been a vote winner to all the other parties, and a vote loser to the future General election.[/p][/quote]Marybelle,Dear, keep your head in the bag... it suiits u... Local politics is not the same as national politics... Pam Challis has worked bloody hard for Castle Point Borough Council to get it where it is... Lady Melina

7:14pm Thu 9 May 13

Lady Melina says...

As you have so much to say, John T Pharro...have the courage of your convictions and stand for councillor... or are you all mouth and no trousers....
As you have so much to say, John T Pharro...have the courage of your convictions and stand for councillor... or are you all mouth and no trousers.... Lady Melina

7:18pm Thu 9 May 13

Lady Melina says...

As for Red under the Bed, stay under the bed is all can say... best thing for one and all...
As for Red under the Bed, stay under the bed is all can say... best thing for one and all... Lady Melina

7:31pm Thu 9 May 13

Lady Melina says...

Bill Dick and Colin Riley... two **** fine hard working councillors... replaced with what ???
Bill Dick and Colin Riley... two **** fine hard working councillors... replaced with what ??? Lady Melina

7:33pm Thu 9 May 13

iknowbetter says...

Lady Melina wrote:
marybelle wrote:
Mrs Challis should take her head out of the bag and realize her traditional voters have turned to a party that is advertising exactly what they want Europe kicked into touch, immigration controlled properly and the ever present fear removed about being classed as racist because we complain about immigration, this view is very common amongst all races already in this country, plus Law and Order being balanced properly with an acceptance that victims are more important than bloody criminals, and stop the continual bashing of The Police by the BBC and the Tories Mrs May. Also the current Banking policy of cutting interest rates for savers caused by the Government pouring money into the economy needs to be looked at so people save and invest in the future of the country, instead of people putting their savings under the bed in fear of losing them. Well done UKIP, Mrs Challis dear the coalition has been a vote winner to all the other parties, and a vote loser to the future General election.
Marybelle,Dear, keep your head in the bag... it suiits u... Local politics is not the same as national politics... Pam Challis has worked bloody hard for Castle Point Borough Council to get it where it is...
Quote: Lady Melina:** Pam Challis has worked bloody hard for Castle Point Borough Council to get it where it is.
**
And just exactly where is that?.
[quote][p][bold]Lady Melina[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]marybelle[/bold] wrote: Mrs Challis should take her head out of the bag and realize her traditional voters have turned to a party that is advertising exactly what they want Europe kicked into touch, immigration controlled properly and the ever present fear removed about being classed as racist because we complain about immigration, this view is very common amongst all races already in this country, plus Law and Order being balanced properly with an acceptance that victims are more important than bloody criminals, and stop the continual bashing of The Police by the BBC and the Tories Mrs May. Also the current Banking policy of cutting interest rates for savers caused by the Government pouring money into the economy needs to be looked at so people save and invest in the future of the country, instead of people putting their savings under the bed in fear of losing them. Well done UKIP, Mrs Challis dear the coalition has been a vote winner to all the other parties, and a vote loser to the future General election.[/p][/quote]Marybelle,Dear, keep your head in the bag... it suiits u... Local politics is not the same as national politics... Pam Challis has worked bloody hard for Castle Point Borough Council to get it where it is...[/p][/quote]Quote: Lady Melina:** Pam Challis has worked bloody hard for Castle Point Borough Council to get it where it is. ** And just exactly where is that?. iknowbetter

7:34pm Thu 9 May 13

iknowbetter says...

Lady Melina wrote:
Bill Dick and Colin Riley... two **** fine hard working councillors... replaced with what ???
2 future trustworthy hard working councillors. :)
[quote][p][bold]Lady Melina[/bold] wrote: Bill Dick and Colin Riley... two **** fine hard working councillors... replaced with what ???[/p][/quote]2 future trustworthy hard working councillors. :) iknowbetter

7:38pm Thu 9 May 13

Lady Melina says...

iknowbetter wrote:
Lady Melina wrote: Bill Dick and Colin Riley... two **** fine hard working councillors... replaced with what ???
2 future trustworthy hard working councillors. :)
Very debatable...
[quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lady Melina[/bold] wrote: Bill Dick and Colin Riley... two **** fine hard working councillors... replaced with what ???[/p][/quote]2 future trustworthy hard working councillors. :)[/p][/quote]Very debatable... Lady Melina

7:46pm Thu 9 May 13

iknowbetter says...

Lady Melina wrote:
iknowbetter wrote:
Lady Melina wrote: Bill Dick and Colin Riley... two **** fine hard working councillors... replaced with what ???
2 future trustworthy hard working councillors. :)
Very debatable...
Yes it is and so is what you have stated, but the voting majority have decided its time for a change.
[quote][p][bold]Lady Melina[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lady Melina[/bold] wrote: Bill Dick and Colin Riley... two **** fine hard working councillors... replaced with what ???[/p][/quote]2 future trustworthy hard working councillors. :)[/p][/quote]Very debatable...[/p][/quote]Yes it is and so is what you have stated, but the voting majority have decided its time for a change. iknowbetter

7:47pm Thu 9 May 13

Lady Melina says...

Lady Melina wrote:
iknowbetter wrote:
Lady Melina wrote: Bill Dick and Colin Riley... two **** fine hard working councillors... replaced with what ???
2 future trustworthy hard working councillors. :)
Very debatable...
Yes they **** well are....
[quote][p][bold]Lady Melina[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lady Melina[/bold] wrote: Bill Dick and Colin Riley... two **** fine hard working councillors... replaced with what ???[/p][/quote]2 future trustworthy hard working councillors. :)[/p][/quote]Very debatable...[/p][/quote]Yes they **** well are.... Lady Melina

8:52pm Thu 9 May 13

iknowbetter says...

Lady Melina wrote:
Lady Melina wrote:
iknowbetter wrote:
Lady Melina wrote: Bill Dick and Colin Riley... two **** fine hard working councillors... replaced with what ???
2 future trustworthy hard working councillors. :)
Very debatable...
Yes they **** well are....
Are they?????????????
[quote][p][bold]Lady Melina[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lady Melina[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lady Melina[/bold] wrote: Bill Dick and Colin Riley... two **** fine hard working councillors... replaced with what ???[/p][/quote]2 future trustworthy hard working councillors. :)[/p][/quote]Very debatable...[/p][/quote]Yes they **** well are....[/p][/quote]Are they????????????? iknowbetter

6:33pm Sat 11 May 13

John T Pharro says...

Lady Melina wrote:
As you have so much to say, John T Pharro...have the courage of your convictions and stand for councillor... or are you all mouth and no trousers....
Already done that three times, but a long time ago. Have no political alligence whatsoever. So before you state the obvious that I was not wanted by the electorate at least I tried. Care to comment further?
[quote][p][bold]Lady Melina[/bold] wrote: As you have so much to say, John T Pharro...have the courage of your convictions and stand for councillor... or are you all mouth and no trousers....[/p][/quote]Already done that three times, but a long time ago. Have no political alligence whatsoever. So before you state the obvious that I was not wanted by the electorate at least I tried. Care to comment further? John T Pharro

6:35pm Sat 11 May 13

John T Pharro says...

John T Pharro wrote:
Lady Melina wrote:
As you have so much to say, John T Pharro...have the courage of your convictions and stand for councillor... or are you all mouth and no trousers....
Already done that three times, but a long time ago. Have no political alligence whatsoever. So before you state the obvious that I was not wanted by the electorate at least I tried. Care to comment further?
Ps at least I post in my own name and don't hide behind a psedynum like most other posters. Does that show I am more mouth than trousers?
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lady Melina[/bold] wrote: As you have so much to say, John T Pharro...have the courage of your convictions and stand for councillor... or are you all mouth and no trousers....[/p][/quote]Already done that three times, but a long time ago. Have no political alligence whatsoever. So before you state the obvious that I was not wanted by the electorate at least I tried. Care to comment further?[/p][/quote]Ps at least I post in my own name and don't hide behind a psedynum like most other posters. Does that show I am more mouth than trousers? John T Pharro

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

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

I agree