Emergency housing plans approved for Francis Road site

Emergency housing plans approved for Francis Road site

Emergency housing plans approved for Francis Road site

First published in News by , Reporter

Controversial plans to build 20 emergency housing units on a site in Braintree have been approved.

The development on the corner of Rayne Road and Francis Road is opposed by residents who say the scheme for homeless people will bring drugs, crime and anti-social behaviour to the area.

Ian Hicks, 36, whose house in Francis Road borders the site, said: “It is emergency social housing so the people living there may have problems, issues, and may be at their lowest ebb in life.

“I appreciate they have got to be somewhere, but with an estimated two to three month turnaround on 20 units that means I will have between 80 and 120 different neighbours every year.”

See this week's Times for the full story.  

Comments (13)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:20pm Fri 15 Aug 14

Jack222 says...

Homes are needed for all people.
Homes are needed for all people. Jack222
  • Score: 3

12:51pm Fri 15 Aug 14

BtreeDoorMen says...

Sure, homes are needed for all people ...
...but right between a nursery, primary school and main route for the children walking to each?
I'm flabbergasted how these plans have gone through, given the strength and number of objections.
Do we have a right to sue the council for drop in value of our properties, given the obvious nature of this property?
#disgusted
Sure, homes are needed for all people ... ...but right between a nursery, primary school and main route for the children walking to each? I'm flabbergasted how these plans have gone through, given the strength and number of objections. Do we have a right to sue the council for drop in value of our properties, given the obvious nature of this property? #disgusted BtreeDoorMen
  • Score: 0

1:23pm Fri 15 Aug 14

pierre-pierre says...

the site is opposite Lidl on Rayne road and is no where near any school
the site is opposite Lidl on Rayne road and is no where near any school pierre-pierre
  • Score: -3

1:32pm Fri 15 Aug 14

OMPITA [Intl] says...

What a wonderful opportunity for Ian Hicks to extend a neighbourly handshake across the fence and in so doing effect just a small but much appreciated moment of cheer and comfort to so many fellow beings who are perhaps going through the very worst moments of their lives.

They might well remember and cherish his little gestures of friendly greeting for the rest of their lives.

Those who so vehemently oppose the prospect of ‘different people’ living alongside them might like to reflect on a recent experience of mine .

There was a knock at my door. Ashamedly I did not immediately recognise the guy clutching an armful of electrically powered appliances until he introduced himself as a neighbour from just three doors up the road. He explained that because of the unfriendly attitudes he had encountered in England he was ‘throwing in the towel’ and taking his young family back home to try for better things.

He brought a lump to my throat when he went on to say that as I was the only person in the road who had shown him any sign of friendliness he wanted me to have all his gadgets which were too bulky and heavy to pack in his car for the journey back home to France!

A little less automatic hostility and a bit more fundamental human compassion might make this greedy, grasping, gruesome world we live in a much nicer place.
What a wonderful opportunity for Ian Hicks to extend a neighbourly handshake across the fence [I do so hope it’s not an 8ft one topped out with razor wire] and in so doing effect just a small but much appreciated moment of cheer and comfort to so many fellow beings who are perhaps going through the very worst moments of their lives. They might well remember and cherish his little gestures of friendly greeting for the rest of their lives. Those who so vehemently oppose the prospect of ‘different people’ living alongside them might like to reflect on a recent experience of mine [BTW, I am being deadly serious for once]. There was a knock at my door. Ashamedly I did not immediately recognise the guy clutching an armful of electrically powered appliances until he introduced himself as a neighbour from just three doors up the road. He explained that because of the unfriendly attitudes he had encountered in England he was ‘throwing in the towel’ and taking his young family back home to try for better things. He brought a lump to my throat when he went on to say that as I was the only person in the road who had shown him any sign of friendliness [I dimly recalled helping him isolate a malfunction that had left his house without electrical power on cold winter’s night when they had a young baby to care for] he wanted me to have all his gadgets which were too bulky and heavy to pack in his car for the journey back home to France! A little less automatic hostility and a bit more fundamental human compassion might make this greedy, grasping, gruesome world we live in a much nicer place. OMPITA [Intl]
  • Score: 6

1:46pm Fri 15 Aug 14

BtreeDoorMen says...

pierre-pierre wrote:
the site is opposite Lidl on Rayne road and is no where near any school
The approved site is the opposite end of Francis Road to St Michael's school.
The proximity may not alarm you, but it does me.
[quote][p][bold]pierre-pierre[/bold] wrote: the site is opposite Lidl on Rayne road and is no where near any school[/p][/quote]The approved site is the opposite end of Francis Road to St Michael's school. The proximity may not alarm you, but it does me. BtreeDoorMen
  • Score: 6

2:02pm Fri 15 Aug 14

BtreeDoorMen says...

OMPITA wrote:
What a wonderful opportunity for Ian Hicks to extend a neighbourly handshake across the fence and in so doing effect just a small but much appreciated moment of cheer and comfort to so many fellow beings who are perhaps going through the very worst moments of their lives.

They might well remember and cherish his little gestures of friendly greeting for the rest of their lives.

Those who so vehemently oppose the prospect of ‘different people’ living alongside them might like to reflect on a recent experience of mine .

There was a knock at my door. Ashamedly I did not immediately recognise the guy clutching an armful of electrically powered appliances until he introduced himself as a neighbour from just three doors up the road. He explained that because of the unfriendly attitudes he had encountered in England he was ‘throwing in the towel’ and taking his young family back home to try for better things.

He brought a lump to my throat when he went on to say that as I was the only person in the road who had shown him any sign of friendliness he wanted me to have all his gadgets which were too bulky and heavy to pack in his car for the journey back home to France!

A little less automatic hostility and a bit more fundamental human compassion might make this greedy, grasping, gruesome world we live in a much nicer place.
Whilst I appreciate that compassion and basic respect of people's plights may increase the humane and comfort factor of some of the world's less fortunate souls, I do not accept this rose-tinted view of so-called 'different people' is at all realistic with regard to this site.
Having worked in and around London and Essex for a long time I've personally witnessed many developments like this and whilst I'm not in favour of shunning people to obscurity, question the decision to make possible a repeat of the experiences of passers-by to the similar facility that sits between Bocking End and the footpath that joins Panfield Lane and St Peter's Road.
For years, mothers with children, youngsters and adults alike have been intimidated and leered at by 'recovering' drunks and drug addicts while simply going about their daily business.
This is completely unacceptable, so whilst it's true these 'different' people (disadvantaged is probably a better description, I might venture) need our assistance, I would suggest that the innocents mentioned above would benefit more from our protection from the same.
There's a perfectly good industrial site round the corner, which not only isolates these folks to aid their recovery (who wants to be spied on, reviewed and critiqued whilst at the lowest point of their life, right?) but this also negates the possibility of 'supply ease' - in other words, moves temptation further from their grasp.
[quote][p][bold]OMPITA [Intl][/bold] wrote: What a wonderful opportunity for Ian Hicks to extend a neighbourly handshake across the fence [I do so hope it’s not an 8ft one topped out with razor wire] and in so doing effect just a small but much appreciated moment of cheer and comfort to so many fellow beings who are perhaps going through the very worst moments of their lives. They might well remember and cherish his little gestures of friendly greeting for the rest of their lives. Those who so vehemently oppose the prospect of ‘different people’ living alongside them might like to reflect on a recent experience of mine [BTW, I am being deadly serious for once]. There was a knock at my door. Ashamedly I did not immediately recognise the guy clutching an armful of electrically powered appliances until he introduced himself as a neighbour from just three doors up the road. He explained that because of the unfriendly attitudes he had encountered in England he was ‘throwing in the towel’ and taking his young family back home to try for better things. He brought a lump to my throat when he went on to say that as I was the only person in the road who had shown him any sign of friendliness [I dimly recalled helping him isolate a malfunction that had left his house without electrical power on cold winter’s night when they had a young baby to care for] he wanted me to have all his gadgets which were too bulky and heavy to pack in his car for the journey back home to France! A little less automatic hostility and a bit more fundamental human compassion might make this greedy, grasping, gruesome world we live in a much nicer place.[/p][/quote]Whilst I appreciate that compassion and basic respect of people's plights may increase the humane and comfort factor of some of the world's less fortunate souls, I do not accept this rose-tinted view of so-called 'different people' is at all realistic with regard to this site. Having worked in and around London and Essex for a long time I've personally witnessed many developments like this and whilst I'm not in favour of shunning people to obscurity, question the decision to make possible a repeat of the experiences of passers-by to the similar facility that sits between Bocking End and the footpath that joins Panfield Lane and St Peter's Road. For years, mothers with children, youngsters and adults alike have been intimidated and leered at by 'recovering' drunks and drug addicts while simply going about their daily business. This is completely unacceptable, so whilst it's true these 'different' people (disadvantaged is probably a better description, I might venture) need our assistance, I would suggest that the innocents mentioned above would benefit more from our protection from the same. There's a perfectly good industrial site round the corner, which not only isolates these folks to aid their recovery (who wants to be spied on, reviewed and critiqued whilst at the lowest point of their life, right?) but this also negates the possibility of 'supply ease' - in other words, moves temptation further from their grasp. BtreeDoorMen
  • Score: 9

3:17pm Fri 15 Aug 14

Tattytate says...

Seems to be a lot of talk about drink and drugs !!!! In this thread. Could this new development possibly be for family's that have fallen on hard times ? Or just single pepole that are just homeless .why assume that the new residents will be drunk drug taking skum as so many seem to assume . We all need a little help from time to time some more than others . When I fell I had someone to cach me . Not everyone is that lucky !!
Helping someone that's down. Has two benifits . 1 the person you help will think more of others around them and maybe have a bit more belief in them selfs 2 it's a great feling to help others.
;)
Seems to be a lot of talk about drink and drugs !!!! In this thread. Could this new development possibly be for family's that have fallen on hard times ? Or just single pepole that are just homeless .why assume that the new residents will be drunk drug taking skum as so many seem to assume . We all need a little help from time to time some more than others . When I fell I had someone to cach me . Not everyone is that lucky !! Helping someone that's down. Has two benifits . 1 the person you help will think more of others around them and maybe have a bit more belief in them selfs 2 it's a great feling to help others. ;) Tattytate
  • Score: 4

3:35pm Fri 15 Aug 14

keith_l says...

I've known three people/families who have been housed in this type of property.
- a couple with a young child (approx 2-3 yo) who had been evicted from their council house (it was about 25 years ago) becuase it was in the name of her ex, and he had not been paying the rent, despite the couple giving it to him.
- a couple with a new baby this time last year becuase she lived with her family, who didn't have the space for any more in the already overcrowded house.
- a shortly to be (and now delivered) single mum who had lived with her ex at his parents house until he kicked her out when she got pregnant.

None of them are drug users, and as far as I know none have any criminal convictions.

Please don't judge.
I've known three people/families who have been housed in this type of property. - a couple with a young child (approx 2-3 yo) who had been evicted from their council house (it was about 25 years ago) becuase it was in the name of her ex, and he had not been paying the rent, despite the couple giving it to him. - a couple with a new baby this time last year becuase she lived with her family, who didn't have the space for any more in the already overcrowded house. - a shortly to be (and now delivered) single mum who had lived with her ex at his parents house until he kicked her out when she got pregnant. None of them are drug users, and as far as I know none have any criminal convictions. Please don't judge. keith_l
  • Score: 3

3:47pm Fri 15 Aug 14

keith_l says...

BtreeDoorMen wrote:
pierre-pierre wrote:
the site is opposite Lidl on Rayne road and is no where near any school
The approved site is the opposite end of Francis Road to St Michael's school.
The proximity may not alarm you, but it does me.
I've looked at it on Google Maps Satellite, and there are no houses that the logical walking route to the school mentioned would pass this site. To the North and immediately left are industrial premesis. For any houses on Rayne Road, or the side roads off it, there are shorter routes to the school. It is more than a quarter of a mile away by the shortest route. Children of that age would not be walking alone anyway.
[quote][p][bold]BtreeDoorMen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pierre-pierre[/bold] wrote: the site is opposite Lidl on Rayne road and is no where near any school[/p][/quote]The approved site is the opposite end of Francis Road to St Michael's school. The proximity may not alarm you, but it does me.[/p][/quote]I've looked at it on Google Maps Satellite, and there are no houses that the logical walking route to the school mentioned would pass this site. To the North and immediately left are industrial premesis. For any houses on Rayne Road, or the side roads off it, there are shorter routes to the school. It is more than a quarter of a mile away by the shortest route. Children of that age would not be walking alone anyway. keith_l
  • Score: 0

3:57pm Fri 15 Aug 14

BtreeDoorMen says...

keith_l wrote:
BtreeDoorMen wrote:
pierre-pierre wrote:
the site is opposite Lidl on Rayne road and is no where near any school
The approved site is the opposite end of Francis Road to St Michael's school.
The proximity may not alarm you, but it does me.
I've looked at it on Google Maps Satellite, and there are no houses that the logical walking route to the school mentioned would pass this site. To the North and immediately left are industrial premesis. For any houses on Rayne Road, or the side roads off it, there are shorter routes to the school. It is more than a quarter of a mile away by the shortest route. Children of that age would not be walking alone anyway.
Unfortunately grime spreads. It's a fact.

I'm guessing from what has been stated (and it's obvious absence) that none of the approving commentaries above were submitted by people who live in the vicinity - so thanks for telling us what's acceptable for us to live with, but no yourselves.

Besides, stating the case of someone evicted from a council house, when it was in someone else's name, is risible at best - Should they not have updated their information with the authorities (esp. if someone were not living there who was the named lead resident) then they were breaking the law and not entitled to reside in said residence. No criminal convictions? Then I would suggest they're extremely lucky.
[quote][p][bold]keith_l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BtreeDoorMen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pierre-pierre[/bold] wrote: the site is opposite Lidl on Rayne road and is no where near any school[/p][/quote]The approved site is the opposite end of Francis Road to St Michael's school. The proximity may not alarm you, but it does me.[/p][/quote]I've looked at it on Google Maps Satellite, and there are no houses that the logical walking route to the school mentioned would pass this site. To the North and immediately left are industrial premesis. For any houses on Rayne Road, or the side roads off it, there are shorter routes to the school. It is more than a quarter of a mile away by the shortest route. Children of that age would not be walking alone anyway.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately grime spreads. It's a fact. I'm guessing from what has been stated (and it's obvious absence) that none of the approving commentaries above were submitted by people who live in the vicinity - so thanks for telling us what's acceptable for us to live with, but no yourselves. Besides, stating the case of someone evicted from a council house, when it was in someone else's name, is risible at best - Should they not have updated their information with the authorities (esp. if someone were not living there who was the named lead resident) then they were breaking the law and not entitled to reside in said residence. No criminal convictions? Then I would suggest they're extremely lucky. BtreeDoorMen
  • Score: 2

4:27pm Fri 15 Aug 14

keith_l says...

BtreeDoorMen wrote:
keith_l wrote:
BtreeDoorMen wrote:
pierre-pierre wrote:
the site is opposite Lidl on Rayne road and is no where near any school
The approved site is the opposite end of Francis Road to St Michael's school.
The proximity may not alarm you, but it does me.
I've looked at it on Google Maps Satellite, and there are no houses that the logical walking route to the school mentioned would pass this site. To the North and immediately left are industrial premesis. For any houses on Rayne Road, or the side roads off it, there are shorter routes to the school. It is more than a quarter of a mile away by the shortest route. Children of that age would not be walking alone anyway.
Unfortunately grime spreads. It's a fact.

I'm guessing from what has been stated (and it's obvious absence) that none of the approving commentaries above were submitted by people who live in the vicinity - so thanks for telling us what's acceptable for us to live with, but no yourselves.

Besides, stating the case of someone evicted from a council house, when it was in someone else's name, is risible at best - Should they not have updated their information with the authorities (esp. if someone were not living there who was the named lead resident) then they were breaking the law and not entitled to reside in said residence. No criminal convictions? Then I would suggest they're extremely lucky.
Yes that was why they were evicted, and they accepted that at the time. The young child's father was the ex, he left her whilst she was in hospital after giving birth, so she naively thought that she would be OK as long as the rent continued to be paid. She applied for housing in her own right, but wasn't a priority as she wasn't homeless at the time. The new boyfriend moved in a couple of months later. However, it is a civil and not criminal matter.

With regard to the location - yes those people living nearby are entitled to say they are not happy, but no to cite as a reason a school that will not be affected.

I used to live virtually opposite a similar establishement in Chelmsford, and never had any trouble. About half of the residents were recently released prisoners, and the other half were victims of domestic abuse. Most neighbours didn't even know what type of housing it was.
[quote][p][bold]BtreeDoorMen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]keith_l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BtreeDoorMen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pierre-pierre[/bold] wrote: the site is opposite Lidl on Rayne road and is no where near any school[/p][/quote]The approved site is the opposite end of Francis Road to St Michael's school. The proximity may not alarm you, but it does me.[/p][/quote]I've looked at it on Google Maps Satellite, and there are no houses that the logical walking route to the school mentioned would pass this site. To the North and immediately left are industrial premesis. For any houses on Rayne Road, or the side roads off it, there are shorter routes to the school. It is more than a quarter of a mile away by the shortest route. Children of that age would not be walking alone anyway.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately grime spreads. It's a fact. I'm guessing from what has been stated (and it's obvious absence) that none of the approving commentaries above were submitted by people who live in the vicinity - so thanks for telling us what's acceptable for us to live with, but no yourselves. Besides, stating the case of someone evicted from a council house, when it was in someone else's name, is risible at best - Should they not have updated their information with the authorities (esp. if someone were not living there who was the named lead resident) then they were breaking the law and not entitled to reside in said residence. No criminal convictions? Then I would suggest they're extremely lucky.[/p][/quote]Yes that was why they were evicted, and they accepted that at the time. The young child's father was the ex, he left her whilst she was in hospital after giving birth, so she naively thought that she would be OK as long as the rent continued to be paid. She applied for housing in her own right, but wasn't a priority as she wasn't homeless at the time. The new boyfriend moved in a couple of months later. However, it is a civil and not criminal matter. With regard to the location - yes those people living nearby are entitled to say they are not happy, but no to cite as a reason a school that will not be affected. I used to live virtually opposite a similar establishement in Chelmsford, and never had any trouble. About half of the residents were recently released prisoners, and the other half were victims of domestic abuse. Most neighbours didn't even know what type of housing it was. keith_l
  • Score: 2

6:11pm Sun 17 Aug 14

aloadofuntitledshit says...

Maybe instead of building more houses they should put them in places already built,the council already knocked down a hospital with protected species in that just magically "disappeared".. I hate our corrupted council
Maybe instead of building more houses they should put them in places already built,the council already knocked down a hospital with protected species in that just magically "disappeared".. I hate our corrupted council aloadofuntitledshit
  • Score: 1

6:23pm Sun 17 Aug 14

Bhudeeka says...

for those of you in favour of this digusting idea, why dont you put them up in your homes as you love and respect them so much - they are evicted for reasons and it takes a long time and a lot of money to evict people so councils dont evict for non serious reasons these people do not deserve to be homed and i dont care if there are children involved and its shame you lot dont show the same passsion and comparing for the suffering of pensioners and disabled and others more worthy of your own nationality youj seem to care more about riff raff and foreigners more than true suffering of your own countnry - you are a weird bunch with your unbalanced views
for those of you in favour of this digusting idea, why dont you put them up in your homes as you love and respect them so much - they are evicted for reasons and it takes a long time and a lot of money to evict people so councils dont evict for non serious reasons these people do not deserve to be homed and i dont care if there are children involved and its shame you lot dont show the same passsion and comparing for the suffering of pensioners and disabled and others more worthy of your own nationality youj seem to care more about riff raff and foreigners more than true suffering of your own countnry - you are a weird bunch with your unbalanced views Bhudeeka
  • Score: -8

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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