Residents in Eastwood are breathing a sigh of relief after plans to build a rest home were kicked into touch.
Several people living near the site at 383 Rayleigh Road complained to Southend Council about a revised proposal to build a 23-bed nursing home.
They said the building was too large, would be an eyesore, would overlook neighbouring homes and cause access problems for people living in Gipson Park Close.
Now councillors on Southend's development control sub committee have agreed with them and rejected the plan because it was too large for the site.
Some people, including Karen Knight, were also angry at the lack of notification about the scheme and feared it was because the potential occupants would be the mentally ill or drug users.
She said: "When we did find out about the scheme we just had a day to submit our protests.
"Apart from the size of the home, we were very worried about the type of people who would live there. There are a lot of children living around here and a school just up the road, and it would be very irresponsible if people who are a danger to the community were placed here."
However, councillors on the development control subcommittee refused the plan after deciding it was too large for the site.
Coun Roger Weaver (Con, Eastwood): "I think its totally unacceptable.
"There are over 30 per cent more rooms than it was previously declared suitable for and it was three stories and now we have four.
"I have difficult saying I want it refused because I want something on the site but it's got to be something that fits in properly. What we are trying to do is put a quart into a pint pot."
Mike Pregnall, assistant director of technical services said: "Fears over occupation are not such to warrant refusal in this location, especially as the building, due to its limited parking, is to be restricted to use by elderly persons."
The site has been vacant for a year. In February a bid to build a 32-bed nursing home on the site was rejected but an appeal has been lodged against this refusal.
Converted for the new archive on 19 November 2001. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article