Southend RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


Havens submits its plans for new hospice on green belt land

4:42pm Friday 23rd September 2011 in Southend

an artist’s impression of what the new hospice on Belton Hills, Leigh, would look like an artist’s impression of what the new hospice on Belton Hills, Leigh, would look like

A CHARITY will today submit a planning application for a £15million hospice on green belt land in Leigh.

Havens Hospices, which runs Fair Havens adult hospice, in Westcliff, and Little Havens Children’s Hospice, in Thundersley, wants to build the 16-bed adult hospice on land off Belton Way West, adjoining Castle Drive, in Leigh.

Despite opposition from some opposed to green belt development, the charity said it decided on the site after considering more than 80 others.

Bosses say they have gathered strong public support with a petition signed by more than 20,000 people.

The planning application submitted to Southend Council will outline the charity’s hopes for the site, which is owned by the Salvation Army and will be sold to Havens should the plans be approved.

Chief executive Andy Smith said: “If the charity is successful in its application to build a new adult hospice, Fair Havens will be able to care for twice as many patients as before.

“The adequacy of our building on Chalkwell Avenue is failing and Fair Havens is the only organisation in Southend entirely devoted to providing specialist care to adults with life-limiting illnesses and their families. It is therefore our duty to ensure we can meet the increasing demand of hospice care in the future.”

Southend Council has yet to set a target date for a decision, but it is expected to be in December.

Public sessions displaying the plans will be held at Southend Central Library in Victoria Avenue from 1pm to 7pm on October 14 and 9pm to 5pm on October 15. For more information visit www.havenshospices.org.uk/ newfairhavens

Comments(19)

mrangrysos says...
5:07pm Fri 23 Sep 11

They may well have over 20,000 signatures, I doubt that these are from local residents though.

I hope that the Council see sense and refuse planning permission and are not bullied by sentiment.

The hospice does a wonderful job, the proposed site is unsuitable.


Green Belt land should remain Green Belt!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

carnacation says...
5:27pm Fri 23 Sep 11

Fantastic, the lovely location will surely ease the burden of those poor kids, with sea views and sea air, it would be one step from heaven.

Obviously the anti-brigade will be banging their no development drums, I hope the council can see through these trite protests, and allow this wonderful development to progress to fruition.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

AVM says...
5:37pm Fri 23 Sep 11

Surprised they are even bothering to ask for planning permission.
Do what the Gypsies do, turn up and start building.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Broadwaywatch says...
5:39pm Fri 23 Sep 11

carnacation wrote:
Fantastic, the lovely location will surely ease the burden of those poor kids, with sea views and sea air, it would be one step from heaven. Obviously the anti-brigade will be banging their no development drums, I hope the council can see through these trite protests, and allow this wonderful development to progress to fruition.
with all due respect the proposed Hospice is not for Children who are cared for in Little Havens, Daws Heath It is for Adults.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

whataday says...
5:48pm Fri 23 Sep 11

As AVM says do what the "travellers" at Dale Farm etal do just build it
-
If Havens are told to pull it down cite discrimination. The "travellers" are saying they're an ethnic minority so to treat Havens differently would be racial discrimination (due to ethnicity of non-travellers) and discrimination on the grounds of disability because the residents are mainly disabled due to their terminal illnesses
If its fair for travellers then its fair for the rest

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Max Impact says...
5:56pm Fri 23 Sep 11

Wonder if a protest group will start another campain against it.

I support the plans, the more beds they can provide the better.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

katieloufreebush says...
7:18pm Fri 23 Sep 11

A difficult one this one. The present hospice is situated in a densly populated area and there is no possiblility of expanding the facilities.
Why cannot the adult hospice be situated alongside the chlldrens hospice in Thundersley. There is a massive amount of land there which is not accessable to the public, unless, you are a visitor to the childrens hospice. I understand that this land was/is greenbelt, but, it has already been built on and serves no function for the wider community. Surely this would be a better set up for all.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Ivanna Goodhump says...
7:23pm Fri 23 Sep 11

Fairhavens may be a charity but it is not immune to the normal financial rules of business - it can "go bust" or even be shut down by the charity commission.
~
What happens to this monstrosity if that happens, either during the build or after - no doubt it will end up as residential ...
~
If the Council are crazy enough to accept this proposal then they should add a caveat that Fairhavens lodges a financial bond with the Council of sufficient size that it will pay for the building to be demolished and the site returned to its current state should the charity fail or decide to relocate.
~
If this stops matters in their tracks then so be it.
~
As for all this emotional blackmail about "duty of care" etc - I am quite sure that their patients aren't going to suffer more because they can't see the estuary - after all, what happens now - they overlook other houses in Chalkwell Avenue and I doubt there are any complaints about the view.
They could put a building anywhere and fulfil their duty of care - so why on unspoilt greenbelt.
~
If this proposal was for flats with the same design and footprint it wouldn't even be entertained and it's on that principal that this submission needs to be judged.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

southendreb says...
8:35pm Fri 23 Sep 11

I have great respect for Havens but it was not all that long ago that they nearly went broke. It doesn't say where the money is coming from, I to agree that thundersly may be a far better bet,

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Elephantman2 says...
9:04pm Fri 23 Sep 11

If this proposal was for a traveller site there would be uproar and actually there is no real difference. Both groups want to build on green belt and the answer must be no!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

jayman says...
9:45pm Fri 23 Sep 11

i sincerely hope that planning application is approved.

this is one of only a few occasions green belt land should be built on...

good luck havens!!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

jaybb67 says...
9:57pm Fri 23 Sep 11

Much as I support Fair Havens and the great work it does. This land is green belt and should not be build on!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

termite1944 says...
10:37pm Fri 23 Sep 11

It goes two ways ... perhaps somebody should tell the travellers this is green belt land with possible planning permission, they need somewhere to go and what is good fro Havens is also good fro the (non) treavllers!

No ... I don't support the travellers and will glad to see them run our of town, but neither do I support a soft soap story to crawl over planning permission on this piece of green belt land. People are using emotions to manipulate planning laws ... come on dale Farm, I know you read this so head for the Leigh, a smashing spot looking out to sea, and it will take another ten years to move you on ... get in ther ebefore the havens builders do!

Can't have your cake and eat it!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

perini says...
11:19pm Fri 23 Sep 11

Fair Havens - No! This is green belt and I put you in the same category as those at Dale Farm - trying to develop green belt land for gain, You got away with it once in Thundersley but this planning permission MUST be refused. You are profiteers trying to gain pecuniary advantage under the guise of a 'charity.' What is so special that there is no other site in the whole of Essex - you really are a bunch of t******.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

gangsta len says...
12:01am Sat 24 Sep 11

Green belt should be green belt no matter what. I work for RBS and fairhavens were there with their petition a few months back. People were signing it blindly as it was for fairhavens. They were not made aware they were signing a petition to attempt to sway planning decisions. Submitting an application along with a petition just shows the sort of tactic fairhavens will use to get their own way. Its very sad that there are lots of derelict buildings in the area and they still feel the need to build on the few green spaces we have remaining in this area. Im all for a new hospice but no on green belt land.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

save southend says...
7:37am Sat 24 Sep 11

I have no connection with havens and do not live near the site but how many people have taken the trouble to look where the site is going, Holdcroft is against the plans as its his ward, green belt it may be but its nothing more than scrubland which would be useless as housing land and its next to a railway line , a railtrack workshop and the council rubbish tip, its not as many think on the nice rolling slopes of belton way and I suspect can hardly be seen from the houses at the top of belton. if people are so worried about the appearance of the area do something about the so called boat yard which is now a scrap yard for old cranes and diggers, then there is the unsightly skateboarb park what a bloody eyesore that is , lets not forget this whole area was a rubbish tip or landfill site that covered the area south of the railway line and could be seen and smelt for miles, nice unspoilt area , you must be joking

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Beth the original one says...
8:09am Sat 24 Sep 11

they might as well go ahead and build without waiting for permission, after all if the lawless at dale farm can do it, so can a worthy charity...

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Jilly from Leigh says...
8:49am Sat 24 Sep 11

Oh, how sick I am of all these objections on the basis of 'rules is rules and must be adhered to at all costs'! Have they never broken a rule when it suits them? Are they really that perfect? Surely there has, on occasion, been a situation when they have broken a rule to satisfy their own whim?
Surely this wonderful site for a hospice is an occasion to break a rule. When all's said and done, how many people would be harmed by it? Think how many, including possibly some of the objectors eventually, will benefit and enjoy the surroundings they may well have been too poorly to enjoy for themselves for some time.
And to drag Dale Farm into the equation is a red herring - THERE IS NO COMPARISON!!!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Jilly from Leigh says...
8:50am Sat 24 Sep 11

Oh, how sick I am of all these objections on the basis of 'rules is rules and must be adhered to at all costs'! Have they never broken a rule when it suits them? Are they really that perfect? Surely there has, on occasion, been a situation when they have broken a rule to satisfy their own whim?
Surely this wonderful site for a hospice is an occasion to break a rule. When all's said and done, how many people would be harmed by it? Think how many, including possibly some of the objectors eventually, will benefit and enjoy the surroundings they may well have been too poorly to enjoy for themselves for some time.
And to drag Dale Farm into the equation is a red herring - THERE IS NO COMPARISON!!!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

click2find

Most popular


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