£15million Leigh hospice plans in doubt (From Echo)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting ECHONEWS to 80360, or email us »
£15million Leigh hospice plans in doubt
8:30am Friday 9th December 2011 in Leigh By Stephen Hackwell
The site – Mike King, left, chairman of Save Our Green Belt, with Leigh town councillors Pat Holden, Paul Lawrence and Carole Mulroney
CONTROVERSIAL plans to build a £15million hospice on green belt land look set to be turned down.
Planning officers at Southend Council have recommended councillors reject Havens Hospices’ bid to develop a Salvation Army site off Belton Way West, Leigh, when they meet on Wednesday next week.
Officers are calling for the charity to lower its sights and say its need to move from its current Fair Havens adults hospice in Second Avenue, Westcliff, is not pressing enough to justify the development.
They conclude Havens has left itself with only one option – building on green belt – by setting its standards too high for the proposed 16-bedroom centre.
Andy Lewis, the council’s corporate director of enterprise and the environment, said: “It is accepted a need for increased capacity in palliative care services exists within the area.
“The proposal, however, goes beyond this and constitutes an aspiration to create a ‘centre of excellence’. This is a laudable aim, but is not considered ‘very special circumstances’.
“The proposal is therefore contrary to green belt policy.”
Although the final decision will rest with councillors, the planners’ views could bring an end to Havens’ two-year struggle to convince doubters it should be allowed to use green belt for its new hospice.
Under planning law, applicants who want to build on green belt must prove there are “very special circumstances”.
Havens argues its need to move from its current base, which cannot be expanded any further, there is a lack of alternative sites and its sympathetic plans for Belton Way West would justify the development.
But the council officers said the charity had not properly considered other possibilities, citing land at Fossetts Farm and the derelict Esplanade House, in Eastern Esplanade, Southend, as prime candidates for a hospice.
They also rejected Havens’ suggestion that its current Fair Havens base was no longer fit for purpose.
Last month, the charity’s chief executive, Andy Smith, warned the hospice was rapidly becoming archaic and in danger of failing tough Government inspections.
But Mr Lewis pointed out the last Care Quality Commission inspection in July had found the hospice met all the required standards.
He said: “There is no evidence suggesting imminent danger of it being closed.
“This may allow for more time to pursue sites outside the green belt.”
A final decision will be made by members of the council’s development control committee.
Comments(20)
al coniston
says...
8:51am Fri 9 Dec 11
That way, they can stay where they are and develop a smaller unit elsewhere.
geezer, innit
says...
9:02am Fri 9 Dec 11
al coniston wrote:if they want a bigger place with more rooms why can't they have one of the big, empty office blocks in Victoria Avenue, Southend and convert it for their needs?
If they need more room beds, why don't they consider using 2 sites instead of just one ? That way, they can stay where they are and develop a smaller unit elsewhere.
Sorted!
Nebs
says...
9:13am Fri 9 Dec 11
PRoch
says...
9:18am Fri 9 Dec 11
geezer, innit wrote:I wonder how many people commenting on this story actually understand the complexities of hospice care?
al coniston wrote: If they need more room beds, why don't they consider using 2 sites instead of just one ? That way, they can stay where they are and develop a smaller unit elsewhere.if they want a bigger place with more rooms why can't they have one of the big, empty office blocks in Victoria Avenue, Southend and convert it for their needs? Sorted!
Geezer- why can't they have one of the empty office blocks in Vic Ave? the council recently deemed Vic Ave as unsuitable for family housing, so why would is be suitable for a hospice? Would you live there?
People are completely entitled to their opinion on greenbelt but what gives people (outside of the profession and most likely with very little medical knowledge) the right to make ridiculous suggestions liek this?
Laurence Ward
says...
9:56am Fri 9 Dec 11
John Cheek
says...
10:59am Fri 9 Dec 11
I wonder...just what mealy-mouthed words geezer, innit can now dream-up, to possibly justify his opinions on what he (somehow) takes to be "housing development".
j-w
says...
11:21am Fri 9 Dec 11
I am glad they have rescinded the application. Now they can concentrate on their excellent work and can consider a less contentious site (i.e not greenbelt)
al coniston
says...
11:57am Fri 9 Dec 11
John Cheek wrote:John, while you may consider some of the comments to be 'insulting', i personally find Fair Havens request to build on that piece of land as insulting - especially in the way they have conducted themselves by presenting the council with a 17,000 signature petition. Why were they even looking at green belt land on which to build ? I am sorry, but i think they have overstepped the mark with their approach especially when there are apparently otehr suitable sites available. As i mentioned on another thread, had the council given them authority to build, then the council would have found themselves in a difficult position as everyone would have applied to build in that area - i know i would like to own land there on which to build a dream home !! You can't have one rule for one and one for everyone else ! I know Fair Havens have a fantastic role in the local community, but when you start to abuse the position you have built by using emotional blackmail then that, in my opinion, is a step too far!
It's no wonder...that such a worthwhile proposal, such as the new plans for Havens Hospices, has faced such opposition when you read some of the ill-informed, insulting comments about it, here. I wonder...just what mealy-mouthed words geezer, innit can now dream-up, to possibly justify his opinions on what he (somehow) takes to be "housing development".
mikey-leigh
says...
12:10pm Fri 9 Dec 11
I'm sure nibyism, snobbery and backhanders from the Leigh "set" to the corrupt powers that be had nothing to do with this decision...
I will predict that the nasty antis (not the considered ones that make their point without accusation or malice) will be gloating beyond belief. But at some time in the future - perhaps in years to come - they will realise that their conduct was disgraceful by the smear campaign that was launched to blacken an honest charity's name, despite attempts to justify their underhand actions by claiming to be a supporter/volunteer/
have had experience of the hospice. The lowest of the low.
DK557
says...
12:57pm Fri 9 Dec 11
http://www.southend.
gov.uk/news/article/
591/havens_hospices_
planning_application
_withdrawn
BenfleetH
says...
1:04pm Fri 9 Dec 11
Alice_Westcliff
says...
1:23pm Fri 9 Dec 11
Let's hope they remember this. Or perhaps they think they are so immune that they'll never "catch" cancer or any another debilitating illness.
No doubt they'll be the usual suspects who post now and say "dying in pain on a trolley in A&E was good enough for my mum/dad/etc why not everyone else."
andy:)
says...
3:11pm Fri 9 Dec 11
"We always said we wanted to be judged on the merits of our case and the officer's report shows we have not yet fully explained the urgent need for a new hospice for Southend."
Thats the problem, they totally misled everyone...its not about the need for a new hospice, no-one disagrees with that, its the need to build on green belt, there are plenty of other locations..and yes..with nice views..its time for Havens to go back and look again and dont do cheap emotional gimmicks like collecting signatures and putting out misleading statements.
Andy
BUM-GRAVY
says...
3:48pm Fri 9 Dec 11
What a farce, this is disgusting! With so many other options to consider and they want to use greenbelt!! So glad this has be cancelled!
geezer, innit
says...
5:08pm Fri 9 Dec 11
PRoch wrote:wasn't a suggestion (ridiculous or not), it was a question which you almost answered.
geezer, innit wrote:I wonder how many people commenting on this story actually understand the complexities of hospice care? Geezer- why can't they have one of the empty office blocks in Vic Ave? the council recently deemed Vic Ave as unsuitable for family housing, so why would is be suitable for a hospice? Would you live there? People are completely entitled to their opinion on greenbelt but what gives people (outside of the profession and most likely with very little medical knowledge) the right to make ridiculous suggestions liek this?al coniston wrote: If they need more room beds, why don't they consider using 2 sites instead of just one ? That way, they can stay where they are and develop a smaller unit elsewhere.if they want a bigger place with more rooms why can't they have one of the big, empty office blocks in Victoria Avenue, Southend and convert it for their needs? Sorted!
The Hospice wouldn't be 'family housing' so why can't it be sited in the Avenue?
What would make a suitably adapted ex-office building in that area no good for them?
Are you a buidings conversion expert as well as an expert on hospice care?
Are you in fact an expert on anything?
Brunning999
says...
10:07pm Fri 9 Dec 11
If the NIMBYS of Southend don't want it I am sure Castle Point will love it, after all they already have Little Havens built on Green belt that has NEVER caused one single problem.
The Lord will sweep on all the NIMBYs and Planners.
Jilly from Leigh
says...
10:36am Sat 10 Dec 11
I really hope that none of the Anti Brigade are never in need of hospice care or that their relatives (some have none) never have to experience the complications of their being cared for at home with all the anxiety it brings, an and disruption such as the need to bring the patient's bed downstairs into the living room with no chance of peace or privacy for patient or family.
Yes, it happened in my family and is something I'll never forget. My father died in his bed in our lounge/dining room! I wouldn't wish that for anyone.
So, all you sad objectors, think on that! Could you not spare a bit of Green Belt to help save these situations? I wouldn't want to end my days in a converted concrete block on Victoria Avenue.
TommyB
says...
10:02pm Tue 13 Dec 11
termite1944
says...
5:59pm Thu 15 Dec 11
1) nobody else in the world would get planning permission to build on this site,
2) It is sad and appalling that the terminally ill have been sued as a pawn to win planning permission pin the first place! .... absolutely disgraceful!
geezer, innit says...
8:47am Fri 9 Dec 11
We cannot allow the continuing use of green belt land for housing development when a quick look around the district shows so many brownfield sites/empty buildings that need redevelopment first.
Once green space is gone, it doesn't get replaced. It's a valuable and increrasingly endangered and finite commodity.
Show some 'nads' councillers and just say no!