Castle Point Council is looking at whether it could win an appeal if it refuses to grant planning consent for a controversial care home.

Angry residents have protested that safety should be paramount when councillors consider plans for a 12-bedroom nursing home for patients with mental Health problems in Long Road, Canvey.

At a planning meeting on Tuesday night, councillors stressed that a decision had yet to be taken and it was far from "cut and dried".

Chairman Dennis Williams said: "Our position is that it is not a foregone conclusion. Members will make up their own minds at the next planning meeting."

He said the committee would take on board a presentation from those behind the plan - including Moat Housing Group and Southend Community Care Services.

Mr Williams added: "I would like to thank the public and in particular Lynn Pullinger for their comments. She asked some very direct questions."

Mrs Pullinger, who lives just yards from the proposed development, was given a rare chance to address the planning committee on behalf of residents.

Her questions included concerns about putting the home in a residential area and fears about safety for its occupants as well as people living nearby.

No decision was made - it was instead a forum to give councillors more information about the scheme.

When asked on what grounds the home could be turned down, Ian Burchill, director of planning, said planning permission could be turned down on safety and security issues but would have to be fully justifiable that if it went to appeal.

"That is a matter I am currently discussing and looking at before the next meeting," he said.

He added: "We have not completed our consultation and investigation regarding this application.

"We intend to present a full report to the next planning meeting."

The application is set to be considered by the council on Tuesday, June 15. New meeting fails to allay home fears

Tuesday night's presentation about the home for ex-Runwell Hospital patients, followed a public meeting held on Canvey last week.

More than 150 people turned up to air their views at the public meeting - with most expressing concern about the proposal and claiming the decision had already been made.

Around 20 residents turned up at the council offices to hear the presentation to town planners, but many left disgruntled again.

Reg Loan, of The Driveway, Canvey, said: "They didn't answer the questions. They couldn't answer the questions last week and they couldn't do it tonight."

Those gathered heard from representatives behind the development, including Martin Packwood from South Essex Health Authority and Anne Eden, Southend Community Care Trust's chief executive.

Ms Eden explained how the home would probably cater for 12 elderly female residents, who satisfied all the requirements for the home.

They would all have physical as well as mental health needs and would not represent a danger to the public.

She said: "While two of the likely patients would be allowed to go out on their own because of their needs, they have all been determined as needing 24-hour nursing care.

"The important thing to point out is that the patients who follow them will all have similar needs."

Reassurances were given about patients taking their medication and about success stories where other homes had been sited within communities.

Lynn Pullinger, representing residents, was told by committee chairman Dennis Williams that any remaining questions put in writing would be given a response.

She had asked "How will Canvey cope?" and said residents were concerned about the next batch of patients to be taken into the home.

Several councillors raised a range of points, including questions about the level of care and the location of the home.

Charles Smith (Lab, Cedar Hall) urged people to take caution when considering the plan.

He said: "Most people would say they don't want a home like this near them. But we have to be very careful that we don't whip up hysteria about things we don't understand."

Converted for the new archive on 19 November 2001. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.