Injured policeman Reece Clarke is waiting to move into Thorpe Bay home

Southend Standard: Reece Clarke, with his late mother Wendy Reece Clarke, with his late mother Wendy

ALMOST 1,000 people have called for a family to be allowed to adapt a bungalow in Thorpe Bay so an injured policeman can return home.

Special constable Reece Clarke, 21, has been waiting to return home from a special rehabilitation unit in Surrey, where he has been receiving treatment for severe brain injuries sustained in a police car crash in Basildon in 2011.

His father, Steve, applied to extend his new bungalow in Thorpe Hall Close, Thorpe Bay, so a nurse could give Reece round-the-clock care – but Southend councillors threw out the plans last month, fearing they would spoil the look of the upmarket area.

Now 983 people have signed a petition calling for Reece to be allowed home, started by a stranger who read the Echo’s story. Reece’s father, Steve Clarke, said: “There is so much support, it’s overwhelming.

“They don’t know us as a family, but they knowwhat has happened.

It means there are a lot of people out there who sympathise with us.”

The family remain hopeful of overturning the council’s decision and Southend architects APS Design Associates submitted an appeal on their behalf on Friday. A planning inspector will now rule on the plans to add a two-storey extension to the back of the bungalow, which already has a room in the roof, and extend the front.

Mr Clarke, 50, of Admirals Walk, Shoebury, said sympathetic builders have even offered to carry out the conversion for free.

The father-of-two hopes the decision will come by March and the conversion will be completed in time for the anniversary of Reece’s mother’s sudden death, on September 26.

He said: “If I get it, I will be celebrating. He keeps saying: ‘Dad, I’m never going to come home.’ If we don’t get permission by September, I’m going to bring him home to Admirals Walk and care for him myself.”

Almost 100 people signed a petition objecting to the conversion and 13 of 17 members of the development control committee voted it down over fears it would spoil the character of the close.

David Garston, Conservative councillor for Southchurch, said: “It was very emotional, but the problem we have as a committee is that we have to look at applications on planning grounds. As a planning case, I don’t think anything has changed.

“Good on the person for starting the petition, but I’m not sure what it’s going to achieve.”

Ron Woodley, Independent councillor for Thorpe Bay, said: “If he had been living there and become disabled, I wouldn’t have a problem with it, but it was bought for the conversion. It is not him coming home to his community.”

To sign the petition, visit http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/58534

Comments (40)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:28am Wed 22 Jan 14

dhd says...

Ron Woodley, Independent councillor for Thorpe Bay, said: “If he had been living there and become disabled, I wouldn’t have a problem with it, but it was bought for the conversion. It is not him coming home to his community.”

If what Ron Woodley says is true then the reporting is very biased and unfair on the neighbours.
Ron Woodley, Independent councillor for Thorpe Bay, said: “If he had been living there and become disabled, I wouldn’t have a problem with it, but it was bought for the conversion. It is not him coming home to his community.” If what Ron Woodley says is true then the reporting is very biased and unfair on the neighbours. dhd
  • Score: 13

9:44am Wed 22 Jan 14

Bettycraven says...

So if he became disabled whilst living at the property then the plans would be passed? So what's the true meaning of it not being passsed, it's either allowed or not. "It's not him coming home to his community" well what a nice community you lot are!!!!
So if he became disabled whilst living at the property then the plans would be passed? So what's the true meaning of it not being passsed, it's either allowed or not. "It's not him coming home to his community" well what a nice community you lot are!!!! Bettycraven
  • Score: 7

9:58am Wed 22 Jan 14

DogsMessInLeigh says...

Bettycraven wrote:
So if he became disabled whilst living at the property then the plans would be passed? So what's the true meaning of it not being passsed, it's either allowed or not. "It's not him coming home to his community" well what a nice community you lot are!!!!
Yes Ron don't make sense...so it could of been allowed...but its not allowed
[quote][p][bold]Bettycraven[/bold] wrote: So if he became disabled whilst living at the property then the plans would be passed? So what's the true meaning of it not being passsed, it's either allowed or not. "It's not him coming home to his community" well what a nice community you lot are!!!![/p][/quote]Yes Ron don't make sense...so it could of been allowed...but its not allowed DogsMessInLeigh
  • Score: -9

10:15am Wed 22 Jan 14

AliciaSS says...

The echo seem to have messed up by leaving a space in the link so here it is......

epetitions.direct.go
v.uk/petitions/58534

PLEASE all sign, get your friends, family, work colleagues and anyone else that has a heart to sign to get this amazing boy home where he belongs. Thank you!
The echo seem to have messed up by leaving a space in the link so here it is...... epetitions.direct.go v.uk/petitions/58534 PLEASE all sign, get your friends, family, work colleagues and anyone else that has a heart to sign to get this amazing boy home where he belongs. Thank you! AliciaSS
  • Score: -9

11:46am Wed 22 Jan 14

Kim Gandy says...

"His father, Steve, applied to extend his new bungalow in Thorpe Hall Close, Thorpe Bay, so a nurse could give Reece round-the-clock care – but Southend councillors threw out the plans last month, fearing they would spoil the look of the upmarket area."

Then Southend councillors should be sacked at the next available election for such an attitude.

David Garston, Conservative councillor for Southchurch, said: “It was very emotional, but the problem we have as a committee is that we have to look at applications on planning grounds. As a planning case, I don’t think anything has changed.

The man needs these special adaptations so just shut up and do it.

“Good on the person for starting the petition, but I’m not sure what it’s going to achieve.”

Quite a lot more than you have achieved it seems. I'm signing it now.

Ron Woodley, Independent councillor for Thorpe Bay, said: “If he had been living there and become disabled, I wouldn’t have a problem with it, but it was bought for the conversion. It is not him coming home to his community.”

I have a problem with your attitude. You have been elected to serve the people, so get on with serving them and stop dissembling.

Honestly you people need to sort out your priorities. There is a clear need here, does it matter where he did or did not live before? Get on with the jobs you were elected to do and remember you are PUBLIC SERVANTS not masters.
"His father, Steve, applied to extend his new bungalow in Thorpe Hall Close, Thorpe Bay, so a nurse could give Reece round-the-clock care – but Southend councillors threw out the plans last month, fearing they would spoil the look of the upmarket area." Then Southend councillors should be sacked at the next available election for such an attitude. David Garston, Conservative councillor for Southchurch, said: “It was very emotional, but the problem we have as a committee is that we have to look at applications on planning grounds. As a planning case, I don’t think anything has changed. The man needs these special adaptations so just shut up and do it. “Good on the person for starting the petition, but I’m not sure what it’s going to achieve.” Quite a lot more than you have achieved it seems. I'm signing it now. Ron Woodley, Independent councillor for Thorpe Bay, said: “If he had been living there and become disabled, I wouldn’t have a problem with it, but it was bought for the conversion. It is not him coming home to his community.” I have a problem with your attitude. You have been elected to serve the people, so get on with serving them and stop dissembling. Honestly you people need to sort out your priorities. There is a clear need here, does it matter where he did or did not live before? Get on with the jobs you were elected to do and remember you are PUBLIC SERVANTS not masters. Kim Gandy
  • Score: -16

11:54am Wed 22 Jan 14

Kim Gandy says...

Which twerp is going round minusing decent comments from people who have a heart.

We are not interested in your views.... People who just go around minusing comments without really expressing their views and giving us all a good reason why this shouldn't happen are cowards.

This man has a need. If you had a need you would expect it to be addressed. You're probably the sort who would scream the loudest if it didn't get sorted.

Grow a pair and stop trawling these pages looking for decent opinions to disagree with.

This young man's needs should be addressed. He has served his community which is a **** sight more than you have done.
Which twerp is going round minusing decent comments from people who have a heart. We are not interested in your views.... People who just go around minusing comments without really expressing their views and giving us all a good reason why this shouldn't happen are cowards. This man has a need. If you had a need you would expect it to be addressed. You're probably the sort who would scream the loudest if it didn't get sorted. Grow a pair and stop trawling these pages looking for decent opinions to disagree with. This young man's needs should be addressed. He has served his community which is a **** sight more than you have done. Kim Gandy
  • Score: -16

12:19pm Wed 22 Jan 14

Scribus says...

Is it to much to ask The Echo for some honesty and accuracy in their reporting? Reece cannot possibly return to his Thorpe Bay home as he has never lived there. The Echo is perpetuating, in a shamefull and tardy manner, a cynical exercise to exploit Reece's story in an emotional, unbalanced and histrionic fashion solely to engender a mawkish headline which serves the Echo's interests but not Reece's.

It is about time that questions were answered as to why this property was bought when it was plainly unsuitble for the purpose of housing Reece. It was a mistake and a decision plainly lacking in any common sense. All those people saying how dreadful the situation is should put a tourniquet on their "bleeding hearts" and instead apply some grey matter to the issue.
Is this appeal just the father tilting at windmills? The architect racking up fees?
Selling the property and buying an appropriate house will get Reece home far quicker than the process they are going through. Or is that too obvious?
Is it to much to ask The Echo for some honesty and accuracy in their reporting? Reece cannot possibly return to his Thorpe Bay home as he has never lived there. The Echo is perpetuating, in a shamefull and tardy manner, a cynical exercise to exploit Reece's story in an emotional, unbalanced and histrionic fashion solely to engender a mawkish headline which serves the Echo's interests but not Reece's. It is about time that questions were answered as to why this property was bought when it was plainly unsuitble for the purpose of housing Reece. It was a mistake and a decision plainly lacking in any common sense. All those people saying how dreadful the situation is should put a tourniquet on their "bleeding hearts" and instead apply some grey matter to the issue. Is this appeal just the father tilting at windmills? The architect racking up fees? Selling the property and buying an appropriate house will get Reece home far quicker than the process they are going through. Or is that too obvious? Scribus
  • Score: 32

12:41pm Wed 22 Jan 14

297595 says...

I could entirely understand if it was a long term family home, but this property was purchased recently. Wouldn't you research to see if the adaptions could be made before purchasing it?
I could entirely understand if it was a long term family home, but this property was purchased recently. Wouldn't you research to see if the adaptions could be made before purchasing it? 297595
  • Score: 27

1:29pm Wed 22 Jan 14

emcee says...

This is blatent bias reporting from the Echo. If they are campaigning for planning permission to be given, they should openly say so. I fear, however, they are afraid to do so for fear of being seen to be on the wrong team.

Cllrs Woodley and Garston are absolutely correct in what they say. This planning decision has, and should remain, based on planning regulations. The family of this unfortunate man have no business trying to hijack the emotions of a sympathy vote in order to try and encourage the council to change their decision and make them out to be the bad guys.

Bottom line is that this property is not Reece Clarke's home as he has never lived there. Those responsible for sourcing a property for Mr Clarke to live in should have made sure a suitable property was sourced in the first place. It is no good blaming neighbours and councillors for bad property buying decisions.

Nobody should expect planning regulations to change and planning decisions to be made just because sombody's fortunes have taken a turn for the worse. Rules are rules and to change them for individual requirements would cause anarchic situations.
This is blatent bias reporting from the Echo. If they are campaigning for planning permission to be given, they should openly say so. I fear, however, they are afraid to do so for fear of being seen to be on the wrong team. Cllrs Woodley and Garston are absolutely correct in what they say. This planning decision has, and should remain, based on planning regulations. The family of this unfortunate man have no business trying to hijack the emotions of a sympathy vote in order to try and encourage the council to change their decision and make them out to be the bad guys. Bottom line is that this property is not Reece Clarke's home as he has never lived there. Those responsible for sourcing a property for Mr Clarke to live in should have made sure a suitable property was sourced in the first place. It is no good blaming neighbours and councillors for bad property buying decisions. Nobody should expect planning regulations to change and planning decisions to be made just because sombody's fortunes have taken a turn for the worse. Rules are rules and to change them for individual requirements would cause anarchic situations. emcee
  • Score: 28

1:53pm Wed 22 Jan 14

niki-loo says...

really wish some people commenting would read the bloody article!! although it is totally biased. reece has NEVER lived in that bungalow. so it is not his "home" it was a house purchased without making sure planning permission would be granted. yes its very sad circumstances but the rules are there for a reason. so dont tell me im heartless and i should be ashamed rada rada rada because if i moved into that street and fancied turning a bungalow into a house would i be allowed?? no i **** well would not!
really wish some people commenting would read the bloody article!! although it is totally biased. reece has NEVER lived in that bungalow. so it is not his "home" it was a house purchased without making sure planning permission would be granted. yes its very sad circumstances but the rules are there for a reason. so dont tell me im heartless and i should be ashamed rada rada rada because if i moved into that street and fancied turning a bungalow into a house would i be allowed?? no i **** well would not! niki-loo
  • Score: 16

2:25pm Wed 22 Jan 14

reg reg says...

the moral of this story is don't play on people emotions to get what you want you will only get what you deserve
shame on you
the moral of this story is don't play on people emotions to get what you want you will only get what you deserve shame on you reg reg
  • Score: 10

2:47pm Wed 22 Jan 14

RochfordRob says...

Scribus wrote:
Is it to much to ask The Echo for some honesty and accuracy in their reporting? Reece cannot possibly return to his Thorpe Bay home as he has never lived there. The Echo is perpetuating, in a shamefull and tardy manner, a cynical exercise to exploit Reece's story in an emotional, unbalanced and histrionic fashion solely to engender a mawkish headline which serves the Echo's interests but not Reece's. It is about time that questions were answered as to why this property was bought when it was plainly unsuitble for the purpose of housing Reece. It was a mistake and a decision plainly lacking in any common sense. All those people saying how dreadful the situation is should put a tourniquet on their "bleeding hearts" and instead apply some grey matter to the issue. Is this appeal just the father tilting at windmills? The architect racking up fees? Selling the property and buying an appropriate house will get Reece home far quicker than the process they are going through. Or is that too obvious?
Best comment on this issue by far. Expect 1,001 bedwetters to call you a baby eater or similar.

The Echo has a lot to answer for in the partisan way it has reported this issue.

Disgraceful.
[quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: Is it to much to ask The Echo for some honesty and accuracy in their reporting? Reece cannot possibly return to his Thorpe Bay home as he has never lived there. The Echo is perpetuating, in a shamefull and tardy manner, a cynical exercise to exploit Reece's story in an emotional, unbalanced and histrionic fashion solely to engender a mawkish headline which serves the Echo's interests but not Reece's. It is about time that questions were answered as to why this property was bought when it was plainly unsuitble for the purpose of housing Reece. It was a mistake and a decision plainly lacking in any common sense. All those people saying how dreadful the situation is should put a tourniquet on their "bleeding hearts" and instead apply some grey matter to the issue. Is this appeal just the father tilting at windmills? The architect racking up fees? Selling the property and buying an appropriate house will get Reece home far quicker than the process they are going through. Or is that too obvious?[/p][/quote]Best comment on this issue by far. Expect 1,001 bedwetters to call you a baby eater or similar. The Echo has a lot to answer for in the partisan way it has reported this issue. Disgraceful. RochfordRob
  • Score: 11

3:35pm Wed 22 Jan 14

AliciaSS says...

Just thought I would inform you all that since I commented earlier there have been a couple of hundred new signatures on this petition so all your judging and talking utter sh....... means absolutely nothing compared to the amount of love Reece's friends and family have for him!
Just thought I would inform you all that since I commented earlier there have been a couple of hundred new signatures on this petition so all your judging and talking utter sh....... means absolutely nothing compared to the amount of love Reece's friends and family have for him! AliciaSS
  • Score: -8

3:45pm Wed 22 Jan 14

RochfordRob says...

AliciaSS wrote:
Just thought I would inform you all that since I commented earlier there have been a couple of hundred new signatures on this petition so all your judging and talking utter sh....... means absolutely nothing compared to the amount of love Reece's friends and family have for him!
Purely out of interest, where do most of those who have signed live? Shoebury or Thorpe Bay?

Just asking. I think that might reveal something with regard to 'local' sentiment on this issue.
[quote][p][bold]AliciaSS[/bold] wrote: Just thought I would inform you all that since I commented earlier there have been a couple of hundred new signatures on this petition so all your judging and talking utter sh....... means absolutely nothing compared to the amount of love Reece's friends and family have for him![/p][/quote]Purely out of interest, where do most of those who have signed live? Shoebury or Thorpe Bay? Just asking. I think that might reveal something with regard to 'local' sentiment on this issue. RochfordRob
  • Score: 9

3:48pm Wed 22 Jan 14

ThisYear says...

AliciaSS wrote:
Just thought I would inform you all that since I commented earlier there have been a couple of hundred new signatures on this petition so all your judging and talking utter sh....... means absolutely nothing compared to the amount of love Reece's friends and family have for him!
Im sure there have been many more names...how many names are need to cause the council to review the decision..?
[quote][p][bold]AliciaSS[/bold] wrote: Just thought I would inform you all that since I commented earlier there have been a couple of hundred new signatures on this petition so all your judging and talking utter sh....... means absolutely nothing compared to the amount of love Reece's friends and family have for him![/p][/quote]Im sure there have been many more names...how many names are need to cause the council to review the decision..? ThisYear
  • Score: 1

3:54pm Wed 22 Jan 14

dhd says...

AliciaSS wrote:
Just thought I would inform you all that since I commented earlier there have been a couple of hundred new signatures on this petition so all your judging and talking utter sh....... means absolutely nothing compared to the amount of love Reece's friends and family have for him!
Or they don't know the full details.
[quote][p][bold]AliciaSS[/bold] wrote: Just thought I would inform you all that since I commented earlier there have been a couple of hundred new signatures on this petition so all your judging and talking utter sh....... means absolutely nothing compared to the amount of love Reece's friends and family have for him![/p][/quote]Or they don't know the full details. dhd
  • Score: 5

4:00pm Wed 22 Jan 14

LocalYouth says...

Im honestly shocked at how stupid some people are! Regardless if the property was purchased yesterday, if his family are willing to give him the time and care he needs which would save the NHS alot of time and money to care for other ill people.

Realistically it would be much more suited for Reece to be at home for every body. This man served as a police officer!!! He risked his own life to help others and now has dramatically changed his own health and life by doing so!

Finally if you are against Reece coming home you are ignorant and very self absorbed.
Im honestly shocked at how stupid some people are! Regardless if the property was purchased yesterday, if his family are willing to give him the time and care he needs which would save the NHS alot of time and money to care for other ill people. Realistically it would be much more suited for Reece to be at home for every body. This man served as a police officer!!! He risked his own life to help others and now has dramatically changed his own health and life by doing so! Finally if you are against Reece coming home you are ignorant and very self absorbed. LocalYouth
  • Score: -2

4:01pm Wed 22 Jan 14

RochfordRob says...

ThisYear wrote:
AliciaSS wrote: Just thought I would inform you all that since I commented earlier there have been a couple of hundred new signatures on this petition so all your judging and talking utter sh....... means absolutely nothing compared to the amount of love Reece's friends and family have for him!
Im sure there have been many more names...how many names are need to cause the council to review the decision..?
None, there's nothing in planning law that states a case must be reviewed based upon a petition raised by the applicants supporters.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AliciaSS[/bold] wrote: Just thought I would inform you all that since I commented earlier there have been a couple of hundred new signatures on this petition so all your judging and talking utter sh....... means absolutely nothing compared to the amount of love Reece's friends and family have for him![/p][/quote]Im sure there have been many more names...how many names are need to cause the council to review the decision..?[/p][/quote]None, there's nothing in planning law that states a case must be reviewed based upon a petition raised by the applicants supporters. RochfordRob
  • Score: 7

4:07pm Wed 22 Jan 14

AliciaSS says...

dhd wrote:
AliciaSS wrote:
Just thought I would inform you all that since I commented earlier there have been a couple of hundred new signatures on this petition so all your judging and talking utter sh....... means absolutely nothing compared to the amount of love Reece's friends and family have for him!
Or they don't know the full details.
Or you don't.
[quote][p][bold]dhd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AliciaSS[/bold] wrote: Just thought I would inform you all that since I commented earlier there have been a couple of hundred new signatures on this petition so all your judging and talking utter sh....... means absolutely nothing compared to the amount of love Reece's friends and family have for him![/p][/quote]Or they don't know the full details.[/p][/quote]Or you don't. AliciaSS
  • Score: -2

4:14pm Wed 22 Jan 14

emcee says...

AliciaSS wrote:
Just thought I would inform you all that since I commented earlier there have been a couple of hundred new signatures on this petition so all your judging and talking utter sh....... means absolutely nothing compared to the amount of love Reece's friends and family have for him!
But, since I commented, hardly any.
You are going to have to do an awful lot of work to get the amount of signatures required even to get an official response, and official responses do not necessarily agree with the petition. Even petitions for nationally important issues struggle to make these numbers.
Like Cllr Garston has said "...I do not see what it will achieve".
[quote][p][bold]AliciaSS[/bold] wrote: Just thought I would inform you all that since I commented earlier there have been a couple of hundred new signatures on this petition so all your judging and talking utter sh....... means absolutely nothing compared to the amount of love Reece's friends and family have for him![/p][/quote]But, since I commented, hardly any. You are going to have to do an awful lot of work to get the amount of signatures required even to get an official response, and official responses do not necessarily agree with the petition. Even petitions for nationally important issues struggle to make these numbers. Like Cllr Garston has said "...I do not see what it will achieve". emcee
  • Score: 7

4:22pm Wed 22 Jan 14

AliciaSS says...

emcee wrote:
AliciaSS wrote:
Just thought I would inform you all that since I commented earlier there have been a couple of hundred new signatures on this petition so all your judging and talking utter sh....... means absolutely nothing compared to the amount of love Reece's friends and family have for him!
But, since I commented, hardly any.
You are going to have to do an awful lot of work to get the amount of signatures required even to get an official response, and official responses do not necessarily agree with the petition. Even petitions for nationally important issues struggle to make these numbers.
Like Cllr Garston has said "...I do not see what it will achieve".
I completely understand where you're coming from but let me put it bluntly.... we will not give up on Reece. Only 5 days ago there were 93 signatures. Right now there are 1,303 signatures. Thats's a huge difference. We have until the 16th April. Reece will always have our support because he needs it but more than that he deserves it after what he has had to go through. Of course he did not ask for this to happen, he was in the line of duty serving as a police officer and was a passenger in a car that crashed at a very high speed. His life was turned upside down extremely quickly. A few imbeciles commenting on here and clicking on the thumbs down picture wont make us stop, ever. Reece is a beautiful human being with feelings, emotions and needs, he needs support now more than ever, and his sister Chelsie might see these comments and some are very judgemental and hurtful. Seems a lot of people don't have a heart.
[quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AliciaSS[/bold] wrote: Just thought I would inform you all that since I commented earlier there have been a couple of hundred new signatures on this petition so all your judging and talking utter sh....... means absolutely nothing compared to the amount of love Reece's friends and family have for him![/p][/quote]But, since I commented, hardly any. You are going to have to do an awful lot of work to get the amount of signatures required even to get an official response, and official responses do not necessarily agree with the petition. Even petitions for nationally important issues struggle to make these numbers. Like Cllr Garston has said "...I do not see what it will achieve".[/p][/quote]I completely understand where you're coming from but let me put it bluntly.... we will not give up on Reece. Only 5 days ago there were 93 signatures. Right now there are 1,303 signatures. Thats's a huge difference. We have until the 16th April. Reece will always have our support because he needs it but more than that he deserves it after what he has had to go through. Of course he did not ask for this to happen, he was in the line of duty serving as a police officer and was a passenger in a car that crashed at a very high speed. His life was turned upside down extremely quickly. A few imbeciles commenting on here and clicking on the thumbs down picture wont make us stop, ever. Reece is a beautiful human being with feelings, emotions and needs, he needs support now more than ever, and his sister Chelsie might see these comments and some are very judgemental and hurtful. Seems a lot of people don't have a heart. AliciaSS
  • Score: 0

4:32pm Wed 22 Jan 14

niki-loo says...

AliciaSS wrote:
emcee wrote:
AliciaSS wrote:
Just thought I would inform you all that since I commented earlier there have been a couple of hundred new signatures on this petition so all your judging and talking utter sh....... means absolutely nothing compared to the amount of love Reece's friends and family have for him!
But, since I commented, hardly any.
You are going to have to do an awful lot of work to get the amount of signatures required even to get an official response, and official responses do not necessarily agree with the petition. Even petitions for nationally important issues struggle to make these numbers.
Like Cllr Garston has said "...I do not see what it will achieve".
I completely understand where you're coming from but let me put it bluntly.... we will not give up on Reece. Only 5 days ago there were 93 signatures. Right now there are 1,303 signatures. Thats's a huge difference. We have until the 16th April. Reece will always have our support because he needs it but more than that he deserves it after what he has had to go through. Of course he did not ask for this to happen, he was in the line of duty serving as a police officer and was a passenger in a car that crashed at a very high speed. His life was turned upside down extremely quickly. A few imbeciles commenting on here and clicking on the thumbs down picture wont make us stop, ever. Reece is a beautiful human being with feelings, emotions and needs, he needs support now more than ever, and his sister Chelsie might see these comments and some are very judgemental and hurtful. Seems a lot of people don't have a heart.
i just dont understand, even if you are granted an appeal and win, what with the work that needs doing on the house reece wont be going home for at least another 6 months probably more. Be alot quicker to find a suitable house surely?!
[quote][p][bold]AliciaSS[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AliciaSS[/bold] wrote: Just thought I would inform you all that since I commented earlier there have been a couple of hundred new signatures on this petition so all your judging and talking utter sh....... means absolutely nothing compared to the amount of love Reece's friends and family have for him![/p][/quote]But, since I commented, hardly any. You are going to have to do an awful lot of work to get the amount of signatures required even to get an official response, and official responses do not necessarily agree with the petition. Even petitions for nationally important issues struggle to make these numbers. Like Cllr Garston has said "...I do not see what it will achieve".[/p][/quote]I completely understand where you're coming from but let me put it bluntly.... we will not give up on Reece. Only 5 days ago there were 93 signatures. Right now there are 1,303 signatures. Thats's a huge difference. We have until the 16th April. Reece will always have our support because he needs it but more than that he deserves it after what he has had to go through. Of course he did not ask for this to happen, he was in the line of duty serving as a police officer and was a passenger in a car that crashed at a very high speed. His life was turned upside down extremely quickly. A few imbeciles commenting on here and clicking on the thumbs down picture wont make us stop, ever. Reece is a beautiful human being with feelings, emotions and needs, he needs support now more than ever, and his sister Chelsie might see these comments and some are very judgemental and hurtful. Seems a lot of people don't have a heart.[/p][/quote]i just dont understand, even if you are granted an appeal and win, what with the work that needs doing on the house reece wont be going home for at least another 6 months probably more. Be alot quicker to find a suitable house surely?! niki-loo
  • Score: 9

5:06pm Wed 22 Jan 14

emcee says...

AliciaSS wrote:
emcee wrote:
AliciaSS wrote:
Just thought I would inform you all that since I commented earlier there have been a couple of hundred new signatures on this petition so all your judging and talking utter sh....... means absolutely nothing compared to the amount of love Reece's friends and family have for him!
But, since I commented, hardly any.
You are going to have to do an awful lot of work to get the amount of signatures required even to get an official response, and official responses do not necessarily agree with the petition. Even petitions for nationally important issues struggle to make these numbers.
Like Cllr Garston has said "...I do not see what it will achieve".
I completely understand where you're coming from but let me put it bluntly.... we will not give up on Reece. Only 5 days ago there were 93 signatures. Right now there are 1,303 signatures. Thats's a huge difference. We have until the 16th April. Reece will always have our support because he needs it but more than that he deserves it after what he has had to go through. Of course he did not ask for this to happen, he was in the line of duty serving as a police officer and was a passenger in a car that crashed at a very high speed. His life was turned upside down extremely quickly. A few imbeciles commenting on here and clicking on the thumbs down picture wont make us stop, ever. Reece is a beautiful human being with feelings, emotions and needs, he needs support now more than ever, and his sister Chelsie might see these comments and some are very judgemental and hurtful. Seems a lot of people don't have a heart.
But you seem to assume that rules and regulations should not apply when it comes Reece. Why is Reece such a special case, over thousands upon thousands of other unfortunate people, that rules should not apply to him. Rather than waste your support for Reece to try and achieve something that is highly unlikely why not put your efforts in finding an alternative home which is more suitable to his needs.
This whole situation is a case of a bungalow being purchased for it's aesthetics and positioning rather than the functionality of its requirements.
[quote][p][bold]AliciaSS[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AliciaSS[/bold] wrote: Just thought I would inform you all that since I commented earlier there have been a couple of hundred new signatures on this petition so all your judging and talking utter sh....... means absolutely nothing compared to the amount of love Reece's friends and family have for him![/p][/quote]But, since I commented, hardly any. You are going to have to do an awful lot of work to get the amount of signatures required even to get an official response, and official responses do not necessarily agree with the petition. Even petitions for nationally important issues struggle to make these numbers. Like Cllr Garston has said "...I do not see what it will achieve".[/p][/quote]I completely understand where you're coming from but let me put it bluntly.... we will not give up on Reece. Only 5 days ago there were 93 signatures. Right now there are 1,303 signatures. Thats's a huge difference. We have until the 16th April. Reece will always have our support because he needs it but more than that he deserves it after what he has had to go through. Of course he did not ask for this to happen, he was in the line of duty serving as a police officer and was a passenger in a car that crashed at a very high speed. His life was turned upside down extremely quickly. A few imbeciles commenting on here and clicking on the thumbs down picture wont make us stop, ever. Reece is a beautiful human being with feelings, emotions and needs, he needs support now more than ever, and his sister Chelsie might see these comments and some are very judgemental and hurtful. Seems a lot of people don't have a heart.[/p][/quote]But you seem to assume that rules and regulations should not apply when it comes Reece. Why is Reece such a special case, over thousands upon thousands of other unfortunate people, that rules should not apply to him. Rather than waste your support for Reece to try and achieve something that is highly unlikely why not put your efforts in finding an alternative home which is more suitable to his needs. This whole situation is a case of a bungalow being purchased for it's aesthetics and positioning rather than the functionality of its requirements. emcee
  • Score: 11

7:38pm Wed 22 Jan 14

dhd says...

AliciaSS wrote:
emcee wrote:
AliciaSS wrote:
Just thought I would inform you all that since I commented earlier there have been a couple of hundred new signatures on this petition so all your judging and talking utter sh....... means absolutely nothing compared to the amount of love Reece's friends and family have for him!
But, since I commented, hardly any.
You are going to have to do an awful lot of work to get the amount of signatures required even to get an official response, and official responses do not necessarily agree with the petition. Even petitions for nationally important issues struggle to make these numbers.
Like Cllr Garston has said "...I do not see what it will achieve".
I completely understand where you're coming from but let me put it bluntly.... we will not give up on Reece. Only 5 days ago there were 93 signatures. Right now there are 1,303 signatures. Thats's a huge difference. We have until the 16th April. Reece will always have our support because he needs it but more than that he deserves it after what he has had to go through. Of course he did not ask for this to happen, he was in the line of duty serving as a police officer and was a passenger in a car that crashed at a very high speed. His life was turned upside down extremely quickly. A few imbeciles commenting on here and clicking on the thumbs down picture wont make us stop, ever. Reece is a beautiful human being with feelings, emotions and needs, he needs support now more than ever, and his sister Chelsie might see these comments and some are very judgemental and hurtful. Seems a lot of people don't have a heart.
This not a personal attack on you, Reece or any of his family even though you're calling people names and being quite rude but is about the planning process and the misleading headline from the Echo. Not one person is saying Reece isn't a lovely person and he does deserve to come home but this has never been his home. You cannot use emotional blackmail to get what you want.
[quote][p][bold]AliciaSS[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AliciaSS[/bold] wrote: Just thought I would inform you all that since I commented earlier there have been a couple of hundred new signatures on this petition so all your judging and talking utter sh....... means absolutely nothing compared to the amount of love Reece's friends and family have for him![/p][/quote]But, since I commented, hardly any. You are going to have to do an awful lot of work to get the amount of signatures required even to get an official response, and official responses do not necessarily agree with the petition. Even petitions for nationally important issues struggle to make these numbers. Like Cllr Garston has said "...I do not see what it will achieve".[/p][/quote]I completely understand where you're coming from but let me put it bluntly.... we will not give up on Reece. Only 5 days ago there were 93 signatures. Right now there are 1,303 signatures. Thats's a huge difference. We have until the 16th April. Reece will always have our support because he needs it but more than that he deserves it after what he has had to go through. Of course he did not ask for this to happen, he was in the line of duty serving as a police officer and was a passenger in a car that crashed at a very high speed. His life was turned upside down extremely quickly. A few imbeciles commenting on here and clicking on the thumbs down picture wont make us stop, ever. Reece is a beautiful human being with feelings, emotions and needs, he needs support now more than ever, and his sister Chelsie might see these comments and some are very judgemental and hurtful. Seems a lot of people don't have a heart.[/p][/quote]This not a personal attack on you, Reece or any of his family even though you're calling people names and being quite rude but is about the planning process and the misleading headline from the Echo. Not one person is saying Reece isn't a lovely person and he does deserve to come home but this has never been his home. You cannot use emotional blackmail to get what you want. dhd
  • Score: 8

7:59pm Wed 22 Jan 14

Scribus says...

Alicia
Ther is no one who wouldsay you should not suport Reece but are you sure you are supporting him in the right way?
Assuming the Inspectorate overturns what was an overwhelming vote against the proposals by the Council, and assume their decision is given in May. Before any work can be started building regulations must be complied with and this may take another month to get. If you examine the work outlined on the Council's site you wil see it is a hell of a lot of work involved and may take up to 9 months to finish. Therefore, it may be 2015 before the propertyy is ready for Reece. Do you not think an alternative property needing less alteration should be considered and if not why not if Reece is the priority?
Alicia Ther is no one who wouldsay you should not suport Reece but are you sure you are supporting him in the right way? Assuming the Inspectorate overturns what was an overwhelming vote against the proposals by the Council, and assume their decision is given in May. Before any work can be started building regulations must be complied with and this may take another month to get. If you examine the work outlined on the Council's site you wil see it is a hell of a lot of work involved and may take up to 9 months to finish. Therefore, it may be 2015 before the propertyy is ready for Reece. Do you not think an alternative property needing less alteration should be considered and if not why not if Reece is the priority? Scribus
  • Score: 14

9:02pm Wed 22 Jan 14

reg reg says...

niki-loo wrote:
really wish some people commenting would read the bloody article!! although it is totally biased. reece has NEVER lived in that bungalow. so it is not his "home" it was a house purchased without making sure planning permission would be granted. yes its very sad circumstances but the rules are there for a reason. so dont tell me im heartless and i should be ashamed rada rada rada because if i moved into that street and fancied turning a bungalow into a house would i be allowed?? no i **** well would not!
i said the exact same last month.
if i buy porters grange can i turn it into i night club
if not why ?
oh i see that old thing called the law
piffle
we will see about this
right all my gang sign this & and any one else ?
[quote][p][bold]niki-loo[/bold] wrote: really wish some people commenting would read the bloody article!! although it is totally biased. reece has NEVER lived in that bungalow. so it is not his "home" it was a house purchased without making sure planning permission would be granted. yes its very sad circumstances but the rules are there for a reason. so dont tell me im heartless and i should be ashamed rada rada rada because if i moved into that street and fancied turning a bungalow into a house would i be allowed?? no i **** well would not![/p][/quote]i said the exact same last month. if i buy porters grange can i turn it into i night club if not why ? oh i see that old thing called the law piffle we will see about this right all my gang sign this & and any one else ? reg reg
  • Score: 7

3:36am Thu 23 Jan 14

CHRISTMAS CAROL says...

RochfordRob wrote:
AliciaSS wrote:
Just thought I would inform you all that since I commented earlier there have been a couple of hundred new signatures on this petition so all your judging and talking utter sh....... means absolutely nothing compared to the amount of love Reece's friends and family have for him!
Purely out of interest, where do most of those who have signed live? Shoebury or Thorpe Bay?

Just asking. I think that might reveal something with regard to 'local' sentiment on this issue.
Thorpe Bay doesnt exist **no post code you either live in Southend or Shoebury
[quote][p][bold]RochfordRob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AliciaSS[/bold] wrote: Just thought I would inform you all that since I commented earlier there have been a couple of hundred new signatures on this petition so all your judging and talking utter sh....... means absolutely nothing compared to the amount of love Reece's friends and family have for him![/p][/quote]Purely out of interest, where do most of those who have signed live? Shoebury or Thorpe Bay? Just asking. I think that might reveal something with regard to 'local' sentiment on this issue.[/p][/quote]Thorpe Bay doesnt exist **no post code you either live in Southend or Shoebury CHRISTMAS CAROL
  • Score: -5

9:18am Thu 23 Jan 14

DannyK86 says...

AliciaSS wrote:
emcee wrote:
AliciaSS wrote:
Just thought I would inform you all that since I commented earlier there have been a couple of hundred new signatures on this petition so all your judging and talking utter sh....... means absolutely nothing compared to the amount of love Reece's friends and family have for him!
But, since I commented, hardly any.
You are going to have to do an awful lot of work to get the amount of signatures required even to get an official response, and official responses do not necessarily agree with the petition. Even petitions for nationally important issues struggle to make these numbers.
Like Cllr Garston has said "...I do not see what it will achieve".
I completely understand where you're coming from but let me put it bluntly.... we will not give up on Reece. Only 5 days ago there were 93 signatures. Right now there are 1,303 signatures. Thats's a huge difference. We have until the 16th April. Reece will always have our support because he needs it but more than that he deserves it after what he has had to go through. Of course he did not ask for this to happen, he was in the line of duty serving as a police officer and was a passenger in a car that crashed at a very high speed. His life was turned upside down extremely quickly. A few imbeciles commenting on here and clicking on the thumbs down picture wont make us stop, ever. Reece is a beautiful human being with feelings, emotions and needs, he needs support now more than ever, and his sister Chelsie might see these comments and some are very judgemental and hurtful. Seems a lot of people don't have a heart.
I feel sorry for the guy, but why not buy a property that was more suitable in the first place with the payout money? There's a planning system for a reason, and having an unfortunate injury or illness doesn't allow you to get around that system, otherwise the Fair Havens hospice would have been built on the green belt land, which is something most people didn't want, even though everyone loves Fair Havens.
[quote][p][bold]AliciaSS[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AliciaSS[/bold] wrote: Just thought I would inform you all that since I commented earlier there have been a couple of hundred new signatures on this petition so all your judging and talking utter sh....... means absolutely nothing compared to the amount of love Reece's friends and family have for him![/p][/quote]But, since I commented, hardly any. You are going to have to do an awful lot of work to get the amount of signatures required even to get an official response, and official responses do not necessarily agree with the petition. Even petitions for nationally important issues struggle to make these numbers. Like Cllr Garston has said "...I do not see what it will achieve".[/p][/quote]I completely understand where you're coming from but let me put it bluntly.... we will not give up on Reece. Only 5 days ago there were 93 signatures. Right now there are 1,303 signatures. Thats's a huge difference. We have until the 16th April. Reece will always have our support because he needs it but more than that he deserves it after what he has had to go through. Of course he did not ask for this to happen, he was in the line of duty serving as a police officer and was a passenger in a car that crashed at a very high speed. His life was turned upside down extremely quickly. A few imbeciles commenting on here and clicking on the thumbs down picture wont make us stop, ever. Reece is a beautiful human being with feelings, emotions and needs, he needs support now more than ever, and his sister Chelsie might see these comments and some are very judgemental and hurtful. Seems a lot of people don't have a heart.[/p][/quote]I feel sorry for the guy, but why not buy a property that was more suitable in the first place with the payout money? There's a planning system for a reason, and having an unfortunate injury or illness doesn't allow you to get around that system, otherwise the Fair Havens hospice would have been built on the green belt land, which is something most people didn't want, even though everyone loves Fair Havens. DannyK86
  • Score: 12

11:09am Thu 23 Jan 14

RochfordRob says...

CHRISTMAS CAROL wrote:
RochfordRob wrote:
AliciaSS wrote: Just thought I would inform you all that since I commented earlier there have been a couple of hundred new signatures on this petition so all your judging and talking utter sh....... means absolutely nothing compared to the amount of love Reece's friends and family have for him!
Purely out of interest, where do most of those who have signed live? Shoebury or Thorpe Bay? Just asking. I think that might reveal something with regard to 'local' sentiment on this issue.
Thorpe Bay doesnt exist **no post code you either live in Southend or Shoebury
What's the name of the railway station there then? You have a point though, the bungalow in question isn't actually within the area generaly known and accepted to be 'Thorpe Bay' per se, it's in Bournes Green, but hey, let's not let semantics get in the way eh?

I imagine the petition may easily have 10,000 signatures from people residing in SS3, yet very few from the area in which the bungalow is situated.
[quote][p][bold]CHRISTMAS CAROL[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RochfordRob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AliciaSS[/bold] wrote: Just thought I would inform you all that since I commented earlier there have been a couple of hundred new signatures on this petition so all your judging and talking utter sh....... means absolutely nothing compared to the amount of love Reece's friends and family have for him![/p][/quote]Purely out of interest, where do most of those who have signed live? Shoebury or Thorpe Bay? Just asking. I think that might reveal something with regard to 'local' sentiment on this issue.[/p][/quote]Thorpe Bay doesnt exist **no post code you either live in Southend or Shoebury[/p][/quote]What's the name of the railway station there then? You have a point though, the bungalow in question isn't actually within the area generaly known and accepted to be 'Thorpe Bay' per se, it's in Bournes Green, but hey, let's not let semantics get in the way eh? I imagine the petition may easily have 10,000 signatures from people residing in SS3, yet very few from the area in which the bungalow is situated. RochfordRob
  • Score: 8

11:39am Thu 23 Jan 14

BrainTumourMax says...

Nice to see some familiar names here!

I've seen a lot of posts that say something to the effect of buying a "suitable" house for Reece without saying what "suitable" means in this context.

As I said on another post, basically the bathroom, shower and bath need to be on the ground floor. Also the bedroom, living room etc need to be on the ground floor too. Reece needs the Bungalow. The Bungalow part is for him. The proposed alterations would be largely for the carers. 
 
It is VERY common these days for the loft space in bungalows to be converted to living space. Obviously through their very nature every bungalow is going to have a relatively large loft and many people choose to use what would otherwise be wasted space. This part of the conversion would of course would not impact on the outside view. I can't however say what impact the extension would have. 

Yes, you could get a house and knock down walls and convert one of the downstairs rooms to a bedroom and install the relevant plumbing etc and have a bathroom downstairs ( most have just a toilet if that downstairs ) but whichever way round you do it it's going to entail altering one or both floors. 

Incidentally, how can anyone tell whether or not the upstairs is being used as storage or a room in the other Bungalows without actually going in and looking?? I'm guessing not many people would go to the hassle and expense of installing a Dorma for a storage area?

Asfor the petition for Reece, although it may not have any legal "power" it is an indication of the public feeling on this issue
Nice to see some familiar names here! I've seen a lot of posts that say something to the effect of buying a "suitable" house for Reece without saying what "suitable" means in this context. As I said on another post, basically the bathroom, shower and bath need to be on the ground floor. Also the bedroom, living room etc need to be on the ground floor too. Reece needs the Bungalow. The Bungalow part is for him. The proposed alterations would be largely for the carers.    It is VERY common these days for the loft space in bungalows to be converted to living space. Obviously through their very nature every bungalow is going to have a relatively large loft and many people choose to use what would otherwise be wasted space. This part of the conversion would of course would not impact on the outside view. I can't however say what impact the extension would have.  Yes, you could get a house and knock down walls and convert one of the downstairs rooms to a bedroom and install the relevant plumbing etc and have a bathroom downstairs ( most have just a toilet if that downstairs ) but whichever way round you do it it's going to entail altering one or both floors.  Incidentally, how can anyone tell whether or not the upstairs is being used as storage or a room in the other Bungalows without actually going in and looking?? I'm guessing not many people would go to the hassle and expense of installing a Dorma for a storage area? Asfor the petition for Reece, although it may not have any legal "power" it is an indication of the public feeling on this issue BrainTumourMax
  • Score: -7

7:49pm Thu 23 Jan 14

Scribus says...

BrainTumourMax wrote:
Nice to see some familiar names here!

I've seen a lot of posts that say something to the effect of buying a "suitable" house for Reece without saying what "suitable" means in this context.

As I said on another post, basically the bathroom, shower and bath need to be on the ground floor. Also the bedroom, living room etc need to be on the ground floor too. Reece needs the Bungalow. The Bungalow part is for him. The proposed alterations would be largely for the carers. 
 
It is VERY common these days for the loft space in bungalows to be converted to living space. Obviously through their very nature every bungalow is going to have a relatively large loft and many people choose to use what would otherwise be wasted space. This part of the conversion would of course would not impact on the outside view. I can't however say what impact the extension would have. 

Yes, you could get a house and knock down walls and convert one of the downstairs rooms to a bedroom and install the relevant plumbing etc and have a bathroom downstairs ( most have just a toilet if that downstairs ) but whichever way round you do it it's going to entail altering one or both floors. 

Incidentally, how can anyone tell whether or not the upstairs is being used as storage or a room in the other Bungalows without actually going in and looking?? I'm guessing not many people would go to the hassle and expense of installing a Dorma for a storage area?

Asfor the petition for Reece, although it may not have any legal "power" it is an indication of the public feeling on this issue
Do you not see that if you looked at the plans on the Council website you would not say the ill informed things that you do come out with.

The property has to be two flats in effect to house Reece and his carer/s. A bungalow is ill suited to be converted to two flats. A house is more easily changed. As to having the accommodation on the ground floor you may have noticed that thousands of flats in the town are in existence because a house has been converted into two flats. As to the room in the roof, it was confirmed in the council meeting that voted on the issue that the room in the roof is not used as a habitable room and could not be used other than for storage. Oh, by the way, there is no existing Dormer. Look at the plans. Then you would be informed and you would not waste your efforts; entertaining as they are.
[quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: Nice to see some familiar names here! I've seen a lot of posts that say something to the effect of buying a "suitable" house for Reece without saying what "suitable" means in this context. As I said on another post, basically the bathroom, shower and bath need to be on the ground floor. Also the bedroom, living room etc need to be on the ground floor too. Reece needs the Bungalow. The Bungalow part is for him. The proposed alterations would be largely for the carers.    It is VERY common these days for the loft space in bungalows to be converted to living space. Obviously through their very nature every bungalow is going to have a relatively large loft and many people choose to use what would otherwise be wasted space. This part of the conversion would of course would not impact on the outside view. I can't however say what impact the extension would have.  Yes, you could get a house and knock down walls and convert one of the downstairs rooms to a bedroom and install the relevant plumbing etc and have a bathroom downstairs ( most have just a toilet if that downstairs ) but whichever way round you do it it's going to entail altering one or both floors.  Incidentally, how can anyone tell whether or not the upstairs is being used as storage or a room in the other Bungalows without actually going in and looking?? I'm guessing not many people would go to the hassle and expense of installing a Dorma for a storage area? Asfor the petition for Reece, although it may not have any legal "power" it is an indication of the public feeling on this issue[/p][/quote]Do you not see that if you looked at the plans on the Council website you would not say the ill informed things that you do come out with. The property has to be two flats in effect to house Reece and his carer/s. A bungalow is ill suited to be converted to two flats. A house is more easily changed. As to having the accommodation on the ground floor you may have noticed that thousands of flats in the town are in existence because a house has been converted into two flats. As to the room in the roof, it was confirmed in the council meeting that voted on the issue that the room in the roof is not used as a habitable room and could not be used other than for storage. Oh, by the way, there is no existing Dormer. Look at the plans. Then you would be informed and you would not waste your efforts; entertaining as they are. Scribus
  • Score: 4

12:13pm Fri 24 Jan 14

BrainTumourMax says...

Scribus wrote:
BrainTumourMax wrote:
Nice to see some familiar names here!

I've seen a lot of posts that say something to the effect of buying a "suitable" house for Reece without saying what "suitable" means in this context.

As I said on another post, basically the bathroom, shower and bath need to be on the ground floor. Also the bedroom, living room etc need to be on the ground floor too. Reece needs the Bungalow. The Bungalow part is for him. The proposed alterations would be largely for the carers. 
 
It is VERY common these days for the loft space in bungalows to be converted to living space. Obviously through their very nature every bungalow is going to have a relatively large loft and many people choose to use what would otherwise be wasted space. This part of the conversion would of course would not impact on the outside view. I can't however say what impact the extension would have. 

Yes, you could get a house and knock down walls and convert one of the downstairs rooms to a bedroom and install the relevant plumbing etc and have a bathroom downstairs ( most have just a toilet if that downstairs ) but whichever way round you do it it's going to entail altering one or both floors. 

Incidentally, how can anyone tell whether or not the upstairs is being used as storage or a room in the other Bungalows without actually going in and looking?? I'm guessing not many people would go to the hassle and expense of installing a Dorma for a storage area?

Asfor the petition for Reece, although it may not have any legal "power" it is an indication of the public feeling on this issue
Do you not see that if you looked at the plans on the Council website you would not say the ill informed things that you do come out with.

The property has to be two flats in effect to house Reece and his carer/s. A bungalow is ill suited to be converted to two flats. A house is more easily changed. As to having the accommodation on the ground floor you may have noticed that thousands of flats in the town are in existence because a house has been converted into two flats. As to the room in the roof, it was confirmed in the council meeting that voted on the issue that the room in the roof is not used as a habitable room and could not be used other than for storage. Oh, by the way, there is no existing Dormer. Look at the plans. Then you would be informed and you would not waste your efforts; entertaining as they are.
Nice to see you're still alive Scribus.

As usual we'll have to agree to disagree.

I did actually see the plans ( and the amended plans ). I also saw some of the other neighbour's concerns - some of which were:

• Concern in relation to flood risk.
• Impact on privacy.
• Decking is a fire hazard.
• Impact on streetscene.
• Out of character.
• Owner should purchase a more suitable property somewhere else.
• Trouble negotiating the parked vehicles
• Health concerns by a change to the environment.

It might be your opinion that a house is more easily converted. I think there is very little difference. Although a cynical person might suggest that Southend architects APS Design Associates are just motivated by the money I'll give them the benefit of doubt - and they are ( presumably) qualified architects and they are not advocating buying a house and converting it.

It may be bad advice or perhaps they're correct. We will see what happens at the appeal.

As for the Dormer, do you mean No.5 or that none of the Bungalows in Thorpe Hall Close have them?? Also I am aware that it was confirmed in the council meeting that voted on the issue that the room in the roof is not used as a habitable room - but I'm not sure if they meant from now on ( in any of the Bungalows ) or if they were saying that this has always been the case? I do remember seeing somewhere something about an attempt to stop any Dormers being put in.

In any case, whether it breaks any rules or not, I'll stick with my original comment - how can anyone tell whether or not the upstairs is being used as storage or a room in the other Bungalows without actually going in and looking?? I'm guessing not many people would go to the hassle and expense of installing a Dorma for a storage area?
[quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrainTumourMax[/bold] wrote: Nice to see some familiar names here! I've seen a lot of posts that say something to the effect of buying a "suitable" house for Reece without saying what "suitable" means in this context. As I said on another post, basically the bathroom, shower and bath need to be on the ground floor. Also the bedroom, living room etc need to be on the ground floor too. Reece needs the Bungalow. The Bungalow part is for him. The proposed alterations would be largely for the carers.    It is VERY common these days for the loft space in bungalows to be converted to living space. Obviously through their very nature every bungalow is going to have a relatively large loft and many people choose to use what would otherwise be wasted space. This part of the conversion would of course would not impact on the outside view. I can't however say what impact the extension would have.  Yes, you could get a house and knock down walls and convert one of the downstairs rooms to a bedroom and install the relevant plumbing etc and have a bathroom downstairs ( most have just a toilet if that downstairs ) but whichever way round you do it it's going to entail altering one or both floors.  Incidentally, how can anyone tell whether or not the upstairs is being used as storage or a room in the other Bungalows without actually going in and looking?? I'm guessing not many people would go to the hassle and expense of installing a Dorma for a storage area? Asfor the petition for Reece, although it may not have any legal "power" it is an indication of the public feeling on this issue[/p][/quote]Do you not see that if you looked at the plans on the Council website you would not say the ill informed things that you do come out with. The property has to be two flats in effect to house Reece and his carer/s. A bungalow is ill suited to be converted to two flats. A house is more easily changed. As to having the accommodation on the ground floor you may have noticed that thousands of flats in the town are in existence because a house has been converted into two flats. As to the room in the roof, it was confirmed in the council meeting that voted on the issue that the room in the roof is not used as a habitable room and could not be used other than for storage. Oh, by the way, there is no existing Dormer. Look at the plans. Then you would be informed and you would not waste your efforts; entertaining as they are.[/p][/quote]Nice to see you're still alive Scribus. As usual we'll have to agree to disagree. I did actually see the plans ( and the amended plans ). I also saw some of the other neighbour's concerns - some of which were: • Concern in relation to flood risk. • Impact on privacy. • Decking is a fire hazard. • Impact on streetscene. • Out of character. • Owner should purchase a more suitable property somewhere else. • Trouble negotiating the parked vehicles • Health concerns by a change to the environment. It might be your opinion that a house is more easily converted. I think there is very little difference. Although a cynical person might suggest that Southend architects APS Design Associates are just motivated by the money I'll give them the benefit of doubt - and they are ( presumably) qualified architects and they are not advocating buying a house and converting it. It may be bad advice or perhaps they're correct. We will see what happens at the appeal. As for the Dormer, do you mean No.5 or that none of the Bungalows in Thorpe Hall Close have them?? Also I am aware that it was confirmed in the council meeting that voted on the issue that the room in the roof is not used as a habitable room - but I'm not sure if they meant from now on ( in any of the Bungalows ) or if they were saying that this has always been the case? I do remember seeing somewhere something about an attempt to stop any Dormers being put in. In any case, whether it breaks any rules or not, I'll stick with my original comment - how can anyone tell whether or not the upstairs is being used as storage or a room in the other Bungalows without actually going in and looking?? I'm guessing not many people would go to the hassle and expense of installing a Dorma for a storage area? BrainTumourMax
  • Score: -2

6:09pm Sat 25 Jan 14

southendfanman says...

This is ridiculous. The Father should stop ,sell the house and move. Poor neighbours being vilified just because they don't agree to this extension. And the 1000 people who signed the petition should be ashamed, you do not live in the street.
This is ridiculous. The Father should stop ,sell the house and move. Poor neighbours being vilified just because they don't agree to this extension. And the 1000 people who signed the petition should be ashamed, you do not live in the street. southendfanman
  • Score: 7

6:26pm Sat 25 Jan 14

southendfanman says...

Scribus wrote:
Is it to much to ask The Echo for some honesty and accuracy in their reporting? Reece cannot possibly return to his Thorpe Bay home as he has never lived there. The Echo is perpetuating, in a shamefull and tardy manner, a cynical exercise to exploit Reece's story in an emotional, unbalanced and histrionic fashion solely to engender a mawkish headline which serves the Echo's interests but not Reece's.

It is about time that questions were answered as to why this property was bought when it was plainly unsuitble for the purpose of housing Reece. It was a mistake and a decision plainly lacking in any common sense. All those people saying how dreadful the situation is should put a tourniquet on their "bleeding hearts" and instead apply some grey matter to the issue.
Is this appeal just the father tilting at windmills? The architect racking up fees?
Selling the property and buying an appropriate house will get Reece home far quicker than the process they are going through. Or is that too obvious?
Very sensible.
[quote][p][bold]Scribus[/bold] wrote: Is it to much to ask The Echo for some honesty and accuracy in their reporting? Reece cannot possibly return to his Thorpe Bay home as he has never lived there. The Echo is perpetuating, in a shamefull and tardy manner, a cynical exercise to exploit Reece's story in an emotional, unbalanced and histrionic fashion solely to engender a mawkish headline which serves the Echo's interests but not Reece's. It is about time that questions were answered as to why this property was bought when it was plainly unsuitble for the purpose of housing Reece. It was a mistake and a decision plainly lacking in any common sense. All those people saying how dreadful the situation is should put a tourniquet on their "bleeding hearts" and instead apply some grey matter to the issue. Is this appeal just the father tilting at windmills? The architect racking up fees? Selling the property and buying an appropriate house will get Reece home far quicker than the process they are going through. Or is that too obvious?[/p][/quote]Very sensible. southendfanman
  • Score: 1

3:45pm Mon 27 Jan 14

AliciaSS says...

southendfanman wrote:
This is ridiculous. The Father should stop ,sell the house and move. Poor neighbours being vilified just because they don't agree to this extension. And the 1000 people who signed the petition should be ashamed, you do not live in the street.
You absolute f*cking idiot.
[quote][p][bold]southendfanman[/bold] wrote: This is ridiculous. The Father should stop ,sell the house and move. Poor neighbours being vilified just because they don't agree to this extension. And the 1000 people who signed the petition should be ashamed, you do not live in the street.[/p][/quote]You absolute f*cking idiot. AliciaSS
  • Score: 0

3:46pm Mon 27 Jan 14

AliciaSS says...

southendfanman wrote:
This is ridiculous. The Father should stop ,sell the house and move. Poor neighbours being vilified just because they don't agree to this extension. And the 1000 people who signed the petition should be ashamed, you do not live in the street.
DIC*HEAD
[quote][p][bold]southendfanman[/bold] wrote: This is ridiculous. The Father should stop ,sell the house and move. Poor neighbours being vilified just because they don't agree to this extension. And the 1000 people who signed the petition should be ashamed, you do not live in the street.[/p][/quote]DIC*HEAD AliciaSS
  • Score: 0

6:01pm Mon 27 Jan 14

niki-loo says...

AliciaSS wrote:
southendfanman wrote:
This is ridiculous. The Father should stop ,sell the house and move. Poor neighbours being vilified just because they don't agree to this extension. And the 1000 people who signed the petition should be ashamed, you do not live in the street.
You absolute f*cking idiot.
what a very mature way to get people to support you
[quote][p][bold]AliciaSS[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southendfanman[/bold] wrote: This is ridiculous. The Father should stop ,sell the house and move. Poor neighbours being vilified just because they don't agree to this extension. And the 1000 people who signed the petition should be ashamed, you do not live in the street.[/p][/quote]You absolute f*cking idiot.[/p][/quote]what a very mature way to get people to support you niki-loo
  • Score: 1

6:32pm Wed 29 Jan 14

ThisYear says...

niki-loo wrote:
AliciaSS wrote:
southendfanman wrote:
This is ridiculous. The Father should stop ,sell the house and move. Poor neighbours being vilified just because they don't agree to this extension. And the 1000 people who signed the petition should be ashamed, you do not live in the street.
You absolute f*cking idiot.
what a very mature way to get people to support you
Understandable though.
[quote][p][bold]niki-loo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AliciaSS[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southendfanman[/bold] wrote: This is ridiculous. The Father should stop ,sell the house and move. Poor neighbours being vilified just because they don't agree to this extension. And the 1000 people who signed the petition should be ashamed, you do not live in the street.[/p][/quote]You absolute f*cking idiot.[/p][/quote]what a very mature way to get people to support you[/p][/quote]Understandable though. ThisYear
  • Score: 0

7:05pm Wed 29 Jan 14

southendfanman says...

AliciaSS wrote:
southendfanman wrote:
This is ridiculous. The Father should stop ,sell the house and move. Poor neighbours being vilified just because they don't agree to this extension. And the 1000 people who signed the petition should be ashamed, you do not live in the street.
DIC*HEAD
Why. The neighbours don't want it and they are being hounded and vilified. You are acting like you through your toys out of the pram. If anyone was that concerned they would think. Hold on. Lets just get a place for Reece ASPA. Lets cut the slagging people of on the Echo. Lets sell the Bungalow quick and by something more suitable. I think the neighbors are being bullied. If they don't want the extension this should be their wish.It is about planning law , not pity. And you wonder why you lack support.
[quote][p][bold]AliciaSS[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southendfanman[/bold] wrote: This is ridiculous. The Father should stop ,sell the house and move. Poor neighbours being vilified just because they don't agree to this extension. And the 1000 people who signed the petition should be ashamed, you do not live in the street.[/p][/quote]DIC*HEAD[/p][/quote]Why. The neighbours don't want it and they are being hounded and vilified. You are acting like you through your toys out of the pram. If anyone was that concerned they would think. Hold on. Lets just get a place for Reece ASPA. Lets cut the slagging people of on the Echo. Lets sell the Bungalow quick and by something more suitable. I think the neighbors are being bullied. If they don't want the extension this should be their wish.It is about planning law , not pity. And you wonder why you lack support. southendfanman
  • Score: 0

2:20pm Thu 30 Jan 14

BrainTumourMax says...

southendfanman wrote:
AliciaSS wrote:
southendfanman wrote:
This is ridiculous. The Father should stop ,sell the house and move. Poor neighbours being vilified just because they don't agree to this extension. And the 1000 people who signed the petition should be ashamed, you do not live in the street.
DIC*HEAD
Why. The neighbours don't want it and they are being hounded and vilified. You are acting like you through your toys out of the pram. If anyone was that concerned they would think. Hold on. Lets just get a place for Reece ASPA. Lets cut the slagging people of on the Echo. Lets sell the Bungalow quick and by something more suitable. I think the neighbors are being bullied. If they don't want the extension this should be their wish.It is about planning law , not pity. And you wonder why you lack support.
Everyone has probably exaggerated a bit (!) on both sides.

The Councillors did the Neighbours no favours with comments about the original builder like "Old Mr Goldsworthy would be spinning in his grave if he knew what was happening

It wouldn't have helped that in 2003 planning permission was granted for very similar extensions for number 8...

"Erect single storey side extension to north elevation incorporating garage, install two  dormer windows to rear to form additional accommodation in extended roofspace and erect single storey side extension to south elevation (amended proposal)"

It probably wouldn't  have helped that - as stated in a previous thread the neighbourss also had concerns about:

• Concern in relation to flood risk.
• Impact on privacy.
• Decking is a fire hazard.
• Impact on streetscene.
• Out of character.
• Owner should purchase a more suitable property somewhere else.
• Trouble negotiating the parked vehicles
• Health concerns by a change to the environment.

I'll leave it up to the other readers to judge whether the above risks would be increased by the proposed plan.

I'm not saying you're wrong but if you are correct and this is just about planning law then the following quote is irrelvant: 

Ron Woodley, Independent councillor for Thorpe Bay, said: “If he had been living there and become disabled, I wouldn’t have a problem with it, but it was bought for the conversion. It is not him coming home to his community.”

Lastly, a few people have suggested a quick sell and find somewhere else etc. What does everyone consider to be "quick"?? What with agents and solicitors and their searches and the sellers of the other place you're going to buy ( we'll assume there's no chain!! ) it's always taken me months to complete! Even a quick sale and purchasing somewhere else would surely take at least 3 months - and probably longer...
[quote][p][bold]southendfanman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AliciaSS[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southendfanman[/bold] wrote: This is ridiculous. The Father should stop ,sell the house and move. Poor neighbours being vilified just because they don't agree to this extension. And the 1000 people who signed the petition should be ashamed, you do not live in the street.[/p][/quote]DIC*HEAD[/p][/quote]Why. The neighbours don't want it and they are being hounded and vilified. You are acting like you through your toys out of the pram. If anyone was that concerned they would think. Hold on. Lets just get a place for Reece ASPA. Lets cut the slagging people of on the Echo. Lets sell the Bungalow quick and by something more suitable. I think the neighbors are being bullied. If they don't want the extension this should be their wish.It is about planning law , not pity. And you wonder why you lack support.[/p][/quote]Everyone has probably exaggerated a bit (!) on both sides. The Councillors did the Neighbours no favours with comments about the original builder like "Old Mr Goldsworthy would be spinning in his grave if he knew what was happening It wouldn't have helped that in 2003 planning permission was granted for very similar extensions for number 8... "Erect single storey side extension to north elevation incorporating garage, install two  dormer windows to rear to form additional accommodation in extended roofspace and erect single storey side extension to south elevation (amended proposal)" It probably wouldn't  have helped that - as stated in a previous thread the neighbourss also had concerns about: • Concern in relation to flood risk. • Impact on privacy. • Decking is a fire hazard. • Impact on streetscene. • Out of character. • Owner should purchase a more suitable property somewhere else. • Trouble negotiating the parked vehicles • Health concerns by a change to the environment. I'll leave it up to the other readers to judge whether the above risks would be increased by the proposed plan. I'm not saying you're wrong but if you are correct and this is just about planning law then the following quote is irrelvant:  Ron Woodley, Independent councillor for Thorpe Bay, said: “If he had been living there and become disabled, I wouldn’t have a problem with it, but it was bought for the conversion. It is not him coming home to his community.” Lastly, a few people have suggested a quick sell and find somewhere else etc. What does everyone consider to be "quick"?? What with agents and solicitors and their searches and the sellers of the other place you're going to buy ( we'll assume there's no chain!! ) it's always taken me months to complete! Even a quick sale and purchasing somewhere else would surely take at least 3 months - and probably longer... BrainTumourMax
  • Score: 0

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