Have Your Say…
For those of you who do not yet know, Countryside Property Developers have put forward a proposal for re-development of the old Harold Wood Hospital site, off Gubbins Lane, Harold Wood. The proposal is for over 800 dwellings. Read more here
Good or bad, please tell us your thoughts. Please note, all comments are moderated. Offensive comments will not be published.
August 27th, 2010 at 11:05 am
Re Johns comment to the 400 who turned up for the meeting and saying we have no alternative to offer except maybe some gated executive homes or a park and ride for the Olympics!Good joke John.
As one of the 400 I did not know it was in my remit to offer an alternative. However I’m realistic enough to know that the site will be built on eventually. Like most who attended the meeting I accept this. What could be an alternative? 1) No more 5 storey blocks but an estate mainly built with family homes with 2 to 5 bedrooms and gardens. 2) These homes to be built in keeping with most homes in the area. 3) The above being adhered to, the density would be less, certainly a lot less than 800. I personally think 500 to 600 homes being much more acceptable and in keeping with the original ratio of homes per hectare that was agreed to the earlier plans in 2006.
August 19th, 2010 at 8:22 am
Basically, don’t let Countryside in. I bought from them a year and a half ago and am still waiting for problems in my house to be rectified. They cannot be trusted. The area they build in will also become a nightmare as they are not that keen on clearing up after themselves.
August 14th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
“Over 400 residents turned up at Mondays meeting at St.Peters Church and all opposed the revised plans”
I am still concerned that while the objections mount up, no one has offered any viable alternative. Would people prefer an estate of a handful of large “executive” homes, no doubt within a gated site? Personally I think the best option would be a secure “park & ride” site until after the 2012 Olympics.
July 24th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Time for action again!!
Hopefully every resident of Harold Wood will have received a green letter through their door from the Residents Association to alert them that Countryside have resubmitted altered plans (following the ‘application deferred’ outcome in November 09).
There is a meeting this Monday, 26th July, 7.30pm in St Peters church, Gubbins Lane where our councillor, Brian Eagling will update us. We will have a week, maximum, to respond to the new plans in writing to the council planning dept.
Lets make it a good turn out and get those letters of objection into Mercury House!
July 23rd, 2010 at 3:57 pm
A worrying development.
Has anyone else noticed that the old ‘Hari News’ in Oak Road has changed this week, and become ‘BARGAIN BOOZE’ and title that will surely encourage anti-social behavior in the Oak Road area?
It’s bad enough around the Mercury Garage already, empty cans and broken glass on that corner.
March 18th, 2010 at 7:37 am
As from asking “I LIVE IN HAROLD WOOD” to stop shouting, there are actually two doctors surgeries in Harold Wood (and my GP is quite tall). The new polyclinic, with three more GPs, is due to open in a couple of months anyway.
As to ‘taking away a hospital’, I think you will find the facilities and infrastructure are vastly better at Queen’s, plus Harold Wood gets a polyclinic which will deal with many minor injuries and procedures, possibly as many as the old HW hospital anyway.
If you are 19, I assume you might want a place of your own in a few years, would you prefer Harold Wood or having to move to Braintree (for example) for an affordable home?
February 20th, 2010 at 1:32 am
I think that something that is benificial to Harold Wood should go there. I think HW is packed enough as it is, we dont need more. Can you imagine the traffic!!!!
February 20th, 2010 at 1:28 am
THIS IS A DISCRACE… ALL THESE PEOPLE MOVING INTO HAROLD WOOD… WE HAVE 1 TINY LITTLE DOCTORS AND A TINY DENTIST… THINK WE WILL BE ABLE TO BE BOOKED IN?? WITH ALL THESE NEW PEOPLE??… THIS IS WRONG!!!! TAKE AWAY A HOSPITAL TO HOUSE PEOPLE THAT DONT NEED HOUSING? JUST WANT TO MOVE THEM OUT READY FOR THE OLYMPICS… IM 19 AND I THINK THIS IS WRONGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!
January 28th, 2010 at 11:48 am
Having browsed through the my recently delivered January edition of ‘Living’, I noticed in the Public Notices at the bottom of page 22 the following.
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act. This act is to ensure that new residential developments are built to a high standard of design are appropriate to Havering and will maintain its character and appearance. How does the proposed hospital development fit in with the spirit of this act?
August 24th, 2009 at 6:48 am
As the discusssions on the old HW hospital have become a bit moribund, can I expand the topic?
I assume everyone knows that the old ‘Shepherd & Dog” has been converted into “The Free Sspirit” (note the sspelling!) which seems to have pretentions to become a ‘nite club’, having recent applied for a music & dance license. There is determined local opposition to this extension of the license, fuelled by bad behavoiur associated with the establishment already. In over 40 years in the area, I can never remember the old pub requiring bouncers on the doors! The target clientele would not seem to the local population, rather the ‘tacky’ wannabe celebrities who used to frequent the likes of ‘Hollywood’ in Romford.
August 10th, 2009 at 7:57 am
I’m sure most people have seen the press announcements regarding the new ‘polyclinic’ which is being created within the old HW hospital site. The reports say there will be a ‘minor injuries unit’ open 8am to 8pm every day, alongside the various GP and other facilities.
It occurs to me that as the new Brentwood Community Hospital has no casuality facilities, people from there and surrounding areas will be using this unit. Plus, in light of the excessive parking charges at Queen’s, people who can get to A&E themselves (self presenting) will tend to travel to the new HW unit in preference to struggling into Queen’s? If you’ve ever been to any local A&E on a weekend afternoon, the majority of cases are sports related, therefore rarely life threatening, these will probably end up there too. Of course, later it’s the drunks, though thankfully the unit will be closed by ‘kicking out time’.
I fear the site is going to be busy before they build any houses there!
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:07 am
Has anyone noticed the application number P0233.09 (http://cip.havering.gov.uk:8080/PlanApp/jsp/RDgetAllAppDocs.jsp?PlanningApplicationNumber=P0233.09) which is creeping under the radar? This is immediately adjacent the hospital site on the old ‘garden centre’ site. The application is in the latest copy of Living. It is, like the Countryside proposal, entirely inappropriate for the area.
February 4th, 2009 at 9:30 am
My family have decided to ‘vote with our feet’ and leave the area. We will be moving in about 4 weeks time.
I wish you all the very best of luck in your continued complaints and rejection of the redevelopment plans and I hope you get the outcome that you desire
Mat
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:01 pm
I agree that this is definitly a step in the right direction and proves that Countryside (or the Council) have taken notice of individual concerns.
I live in The Drive and was not notified, so I think you are most likely right that only those directly affected were told.
But whilst this was a good change for a few people, I am very worried that the “voice of the town” is being ignored overall. the number of properties has not been reduced - just created another block of flats!!
-Rob
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:49 pm
In response to ‘Revised Plans Submitted’
As far as I am aware all the residents that are affected directly by the new plans, only 12 homes in total, have received notification of the changes submitted in December.
We believe that the new plans for the North West corner have been made in response to the complaints made collectively and individually by the residents of The Drive and Sackville Crescent last January. We were originally to have townhouses built at the bottom of our gardens and these would have looked directly into our properties, in some cases they were no more than fifty feet from our backdoors.
We are personally very happy with the new plans but are still unhappy with the project overall and will continue to raise our objections regarding roads, schools doctors etc.
We are sure this is not a devious or cynical plot to deceive or trick us into accepting the development as a whole and I hope our result will encourage everybody to continue to raise their particular issues as the developers appear to have listened to ours.
February 1st, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Just to update this topic, the HRA newsletter mentions that the old McKesson building (actually it was original built as an NHS Regional Computer Centre) is to be converted into a GP surgery and GP-lead health centre, with 3 GPs in the practice and to be open seven days a week for 12 hours per day. A GP list will be open soon, though whether many will change from the existing practices is a moot point.
There will be X-Ray and blood testing facilities (so less trips to Queen’s, hurrah!) and mobile MRI scanning. Pther facilities will include a cafe and rooms for the CAB and JobcentrePlus to visit.
The building is empty now, though the dates for the place opening vary between various sources.
December 17th, 2008 at 8:04 am
As interesting development, though does the requirement for a new surgery (I assume they mean in addition to existing practices) assume that nearly 900 homes are being built around it? Which they are not at present.
Is this “joined up” government?
December 8th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
A Conservative party leaflet has been put threw my door stating:-
After amount of discussions the NHS Havering formly PCT Havering are in the process of providing Harold Wood with an extra GP Surgery and clinic at the rear of the hospital site. Work is due to start January 2009 and be completed by early June. This will be situated in a completely refurbished McKesson building and include a full range of new facilities including a Well Being Centre and clinical Centre.Further services will be added after consultation with providers and users.
September 26th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
It appears that the EARLIEST date for the report to come before the Committee is the 20th November. WE, the residents of Harold Wood need to be ready for this meeting. Hopefully, Ron Ower and the Residents’ Association will help to orchestrate our OPPOSITION so that on that night no Councillor on the Regulatory Committeewill be in any doubt as to how we feel about these proposals.
June 30th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Has anyone considered that Countryside may not build in the current housing market, even if they get permission?
If so, what are the assurances that the site will remain secure? It would seem to be ideal for travellers for example?
June 24th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
It has all gone quiet out there! I am a little concerned about this. I guess it is important that we continue to encourage anyone who has not sent in an objection to do so. Ignore the so-called deadline. The Case Officer assured me that they will continue to accept letters and add them to the pile.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Any news on when the council are meeting to consider this application?
May 26th, 2008 at 11:17 am
“based on the fact that some people did not get the leaflets through their door”
Yes it was and I stand by my comment.
Descending into personal attacks is not going to encourage people to participate in your campaign.
May 25th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Message to John: Your comment that “The leafleting effort was pathetic at best.” is based on the fact that some people did not get the leaflets through their door. However, over 2000 leaflets were posted within a few days of the planning permission being sought at the council offices. I’m not sure if you appreciate that these leaflets have been printed, copied and distributed by volunteer residents - not the council - who have taken an active part in trying to stop the development. As I have said before, the fact that you are now aware of this website means that the meeting has achieved what it was meant to do and get the message to all about what is going on. If you dont think people are doing a good enough job, I trust you’ll be putting your name forward for the next distribution of leaflets?
May 24th, 2008 at 11:07 am
With regard to Sam’s question about a possible development behind the shops in Station Road. I understand the facility exists within the planning system to compulsorily purchase properties to enable access to facilitate the development of ‘brown field’ sites.
I have to agree with Debbie about the lack of advertising for the recent meeting at St. Peter’s, I live within sight of St. Peter’s and knew nothing of the meeting until after the event. The leafleting effort was pathetic at best.
I also subscribed to the site’s e-mail newsletter and nothing has ever arrived.
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:01 am
The deadline for objections has been extended to Monday 2nd June.
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Has anybody received yet another planning application No. L0005.08 regarding the conversion of the Grange and adjoining Leigh House to provide 11 Residential units and to demolish a rear single storey extension and erection of two storey building to provide 4 new residential units. All comments need to be in by 9th June. Well done Louise & Cat we had neighbours who still haven’t heard about the original 874 application, they do now, we do need to ensure everyone knows about it.
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:02 pm
E-mail set to Councillor Steven Kelly and his reply?
—– Original Message —–
From: Councillor Steven Kelly
To: alanbutler@biltonandjohnson.co.uk
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: Planning Application P0702.08
Dear Alan,
Thank you for your email regarding the hospital development and I can assure you that I will read all the objections once the document is prepared. I am also certain that your local Councillors will, as always, represent the feelings of the electorate covering both those in favour and those against.
As to your last point, sadly I wish it was so simple. There are a range of planning guidelines set by National Government, The Mayors Office and the local Council which set the principles for development. As long as the application meets those planning requirements, it is very difficult not to grant planning permission although no major developer would not listen to the local Councillors making suggestions to enhance the scheme.
This working together is what enables eyesores to be avoided. The area to the west of Gallows Corner is green belt and, as such, cannot be used for housing.
I hope this answers your queries, but don’t hesitate to contact me in the future.
Regards.
Steven Kelly
>>> “Alan. Butler” 19 May 2008 14:48:03 >>>
Dear Mr Kelly
Please see attached objections to the above planning application, as you are more senior as a councillor within Havering I would ask you to take some time in reading the objections, which I must point out are the opinions of many residents of the Harold Wood Ward as Lesley will agree. The representatives for the electorate should voice all our opinions in the right directions opposing the scale of this development.
It has been pointed out that this is a private site being developed by a private company and falls within the planning guide lines. All authorities have control on what is built on the land within their jurisdiction, otherwise we would have monstrosities built every ware. There is a vast open area of land west of gallows corner that could have tower blocks erected, perhaps this idea could be put forward to committee.
Yours Faithfully
Alan Butler
May 20th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
I object to the proposed development in harold wood because it ir REDICULOUS!!!. It takes a week to get a doctors appointment, 20 mins for some parents to get to school ect - is another 2000 people living in little Harold Wood going to help this situation?
Another police station, GP, Dentist, School, Train station, car parking, post office, more buses- all these going to be put on as well are theyl? i dont think so!
A hospital as been moved to accomodate this development - does that make sense? Houses and flats are being thrown up in any bit of land to squeeze as many people as possible and the only people that will benefit are the developers.
it is obvious that the people of Harold Wood are not happy with the idea and i think its about time that these people are listened to.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
This is a request for help if anyone is able. Myself and a friend have been at HW station this morning handing out development info sheets and sample objection letters for commuters to read and complete. We are arranging for people to be outside station during this afternoon/evening rush hour to collect and again in the morning so looking for volunteers to cover 30 mins or so each … anyone up for it? Possibly the half hour after you get off the train this evening? Or the half hour before you get on in the morning?
May 17th, 2008 at 9:09 am
The proposed development is mediocre in design, doesn’t have the right mix of accommodation, isn’t sufficiently climate-proof, and like so many other recent developments will diminishes its’ surroundings and look drab within a few years. Yet well-designed three-storey terracing that respects local suburban character can deliver appropriate development density.
Good architecture builds on and enhances sense of place and community values. As comment at the St Peter’s meeting indicated, the community is the most important stakeholder, is well-informed and capable of articulating better choices for the area than corporate mass-builders. Intelligent alternatives are the best form of objection.
The lack of genuine two-way ‘community engagement’ and ‘partnership’, enshrined in government ‘Sustainable Communities’ guidance and the borough ‘Community Strategy’ but neglected in practice, leads directly to the soulless low standard flat-roof architectural monoculture that, with some notable exceptions, is spreading across East London. Hopefully Harold Wood people will persist and achieve an exceptional result. Phil Butler for CPRE NE London Group
May 15th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
To Debbie - Please understand that this meeting was arranged at very short notice and unfortunatly, there just wasnt enough resources or volunteers to reach all households in the area.
However, its not too late.
The meeting last night was to make sure the local residents collectively oppose the submitted plans and the fact that you are reading this website means that you are now aware of the situation, probably via word-of-mouth as a result of last night.
As residents, we must all take action. That measn writing to the planning offices with your objections, but also talk to our neighbours and friends and make sure they are doing the same.
If you have email, please subscribe to the mailing list (link on the right) to make sure you do not miss any progress.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:19 am
I am utterly disappointed that I was not invited/informed of the meeting that took place last night at St. Peter’s church, I live on the new housing estate near to Tesco’s, as a resident that I feel would be severely affected by this development I would have definitely attended to listen to the proposals and discuss my opinions and listen to other views. I have lived in Harold for some 27 years.
I feel the proposed application to build 800 properties on the Harold Wood Hospital site is a disgrace. I cannot see how the local facilities will be able to cope. Doctors surgery’s, dentists and clinics are already full with waiting lists, schools are already overcrowded and I feel this can only impact on the quality of education provided to our children. The extra traffic will cause major issues in Gubbins Lane, Whitelands Way and surrounding areas, this is already a nightmare at peak times! How on earth are utility supplies going to cope not to mention the sewage systems!
Will we be given etc policing to cope with the no doubt increased risk of crime and gangs of youths – this is already a problem that seems to be growing out of control.
I am a commuter I travel to London on a daily basis, the trains are already overcrowded, Harold Wood station and train services doesn’t have the facilities to cope as it is without the added pressure of more commuters! I am sure the bus routes are much the same.
We have to stop these greedy fat cats lining their pockets without any care or consideration to the local area and residents!
May 15th, 2008 at 9:28 am
I have emailed my comments directly to the planning dept.I am particularly concerned about the lack of ‘extra’ facilities for health,young people and drainage/sewerage.
Can anyone tell me who is responsible for ensuring that the developers legal responsibilities are met and who will check the sufficiency of eg flood protection and at what stage?
May 15th, 2008 at 9:00 am
I was at the meeting at St Peters last night and was very pleased to see such a good turnout.
My letter to the planning officer is on its way and I’m sure it is not alone !!
However we must keep firmly in mind that even if we are successful in having this plan rejected….it will not go away. The developer will be back with another, in all probability, hideous plan for the site. I’ve a sneaky suspicion that the said developer has pitched in very high with the amount of dwellings on the site in full knowledge that it will probably get knocked back at the first attempt, but with a small reduction in density at the second round will probably get the go ahead, thereby still cramming more dwellings on the site than originally agreed….or is that being a little too cynical ?
Oh..and can someone tell me why being a NIMBY is used as a derogatory term? I have earnt the right through buying my house , doing things the “right” way, paying exorbitant taxes and crippling council tax to expect to not have this sort of rubbish in my back yard !!!!
May 14th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
I would like to add my objections to the proposed application to build 800 properties on the Harold Wood Hospital site. I cannot see how the local infrastructure will be able to cope. The traffic will cause major problems in Gubbins Lane which even now has the occasional log jam. How will the local sevices, like gas, electricity, water and sewage cope? Havering are closing schools, how will the projected increase in children be educated?
This proposal will destroy the village charactor of Harold Wood. It has been stated by the developers that there will be no more disruption than when the hospital was there, but that was before the general increase in traffic. Also flats are an eysore and are not condusive to the area, or to bringing up children. Where would they play? In the streets? We already have trouble with youngsters hanging round Station Road causing trouble. With 800 dwellings there would be even more.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:40 am
I was browsing the council’s website after looking at the plans for the hospital site, and I noticed that there are plans to squeeze in even more new homes behind the shops in station road!!! Whilst this additional development is on land where there are already buildings, I wondered how people would access these new places - if it is via the roadway between the Bradford & Bingley and the charity shop it will be a bit stupid! We’ve just had all the pavements re-done and now they will surely need to put a proper road in there?
April 8th, 2008 at 10:05 am
I’m afraid I feel I must apologise to Nigel, I was not trying to accuse him of NIMBYism (or indeed any other ism), but I was trying to convey that the opposition must be focussed, otherwise it can be dismissed as NIMBYs on the march.
March 28th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
I totally oppose what will be a catastrophe for Harold Wood if this ‘project’ goes ahead. This is just one more example of local authority acting against the best interests of its residents who are plainly against it. This monstrous proposal must be thwarted at all costs. If our elected ‘representatives’ are unwilling or unable to make a stand on our behalf, then why are they there? They should not be signing cheques in our name without our consent and we have every right to say NO.
March 19th, 2008 at 9:43 am
In the YOUR ACTIONS section there is a very cogent argument against the current proposals. This was submitted on Feb. 3rd by Mr M. Wilson. I suggest every one reads it.
I feel I need to respond to John (Mar. 10th) who seems to be suggesting that my opposition to the plans for the site is down to NIMBYISM. I would like to assure him that I accept the need for more housing but it is the sheer scale of what is being proposed that I object to. Anybody with any sense can see that 870+ units - 60-70% flats- is not in keeping with the area.
March 17th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
We also received the ’standard’ Pam Light/Lesley Kelly response that currently appears on the front page of the Save Harold Wood website, and was particularly concerned about Cncllr Light’s comments regarding the expansion programme at Redden Court which will increase its FE (form of entry) capacity. We voiced our concern to Peter Townrow (Head of Redden Court) and below you will see his very clear response. What is interesting to note is that Pam Light is a Governor of Redden Court!!!! I have e-mailed her asking for her to comment on Mr Townrow’s E-mail. I will forward the response when I have it. Presently my major concern is that Cllr Light is showing leanings towards the developers!! which is not a fantastic prospect for us mere residents.
From: “info”
To: “Mark Eost”
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: Speculation with regard to increases in intake numbers.
>
> Good Morning
> I am pleased to confirm that there are NO plans to increase
> our intake beyond the standard number of 625.
> The new buildings will REPLACE existing ones and there are no
> additional classrooms being built.
>
> Peter Townrow
> Redden Court School
>
> Mark Eost wrote:
> ____________________________________________________________
> Hi,
> I would be grateful if it would be possible for someone to clarify something for us, I recently received an e-mail from Pam Light regarding the proposed development on the Harold Wood Hospital site, and the following statement formed part of her response;
>
> ‘The secondary school, Redden Court, is in an expansion programme at the moment which will increase its FE capacity. This, coupled with the Harold Hill Ambitions future proposed expansion of secondary school provision should ensure a comprehensive education policy.’
>
> As Peter Townrow had stated in his Headteachers address in September of last year that there were no plans to increase the intake at Redden Court, this comes as a complete suprise to us and we are extremely concerned if there has been a change of position. please could you clarify the situation for us.
> Many thanks and regards,
>
> Nicolette Middleton and Mark Eost
>
March 15th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Have you received an email from our local councillors? Are you reassured? Whilst I appreciate their efforts, until and unless there is a recognition that this number of units is TOO LARGE and the TYPE of dwellings proposed not in keeping with the area I am NOT prepared to accept “re-assurances”. Remember “you can fool some of the people some of the time.”………
March 13th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Thanks CFT. Yes, I also received this email and have posted it on the front page.
March 13th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
This is the generic response I received and is posted here for your information only. Raises more queries - are the schools undersubscribed? What are the plans for Redden Court School? What is this Harold Hill Ambitions? Are our GPs consulted on extra funds and have they agreed?
ETC, etc. Have a read…
“Re: Harold Wood Hospital Site
We have now received further information about the concerns you raised concerning the development of the Harold Wood Hospital site.
The original application for 423 dwellings was on the site area of 8.56 hectares. The additional area of 4.13 hectares is the land on which the hospital itself stands. The combined area of 12.69 hectares makes for a more uniform shaped site hence the increase in total dwellings. Planning permission for this new total area has not been granted. Also the Borough Engineers are anxious that a new bus stand is included in the planning application.
After talks with the PCT it was confirmed that they are fully aware of the lack of GP provision in Harold Wood. There are plans, both short and long term, to address this. Extra funding is likely to become available shortly to help the existing GPs’ to extend their services.
The primary schools in the Harold Wood catchment area have over 26% spare capacity and the ability to provide a further FE (form of entry) if needed. The secondary school, Redden Court, is in an expansion programme at the moment which will increase its FE capacity. This, coupled with the Harold Hill Ambitions future proposed expansion of secondary school provision should ensure a comprehensive education policy.
Countryside, the developers, have worked closely with TfL and the Borough Engineers to assess the impact of possible increased traffic flow. A comprehensive survey, which took into account figures from when the hospital was still open, shows that traffic to and from the site will be less than previously feared along the Gubbins Lane route. Statistics show that traffic will be, in fact, considerably lighter. At the same time the Borough Engineer is surveying the impact of extra traffic on the south side of the site (Lister Avenue) and some traffic alterations are due to be implemented to lessen the impact.
Countryside have shown a willingness to listen and work with us, your local councillors, and Borough officers to ensure a suitable solution is reached on both sides.
We will continue to liaise with all parties, keeping you informed of any further developments. However, in the mean time, please contact us with any further concerns that you may have.
Best wishes
Yours sincerely
Lesley Kelly
COUNCILLOR PAM LIGHT COUNCILLOR LESLEY KELLY
COUNCILLORS FOR HAROLD WOOD WARD”
March 13th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
I have a response from the Councillor today. Looks like a generic one which others may have received and I will post this shortly. Interesting bit was that they have conducted some “study” on traffic and expect it to be lighter than when the hospital was around. Would be good if they also published what was “studied”.
March 13th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Has any planning permission actually been granted yet?
If not, the cynic in me is telling me that the developer is proposing the building of 847 dwellings in order that they can bargain it down to the 400+ they originally wanted.
I still think that 400+ is too many. People are saying that the local infrastructure is stretched to breaking point as it is. Any reasonable sized increase (and I would say that 1000 more people in the area is reasonable) will push it over the edge. We should be trying to stop the ENTIRE re-development, not just the 800+ dwellings.
March 13th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
As I understand it The first proposal from the developers was for 423 dwellings, I agree that this will make major a impact on the area but unless I’m mistaken it seems that this has already been agreed by the council planning department, but did this include 9 storey apartments ? so unless this decision can be overturned I would hope that an industrial site is not on the cards, so as a community I feel our focus is to ensure that our voice is heard and we minimise the impact these 423 homes will have on the area by ensuring the guidelines laid down by the givernment for any new development are adhered to and no more than the agreed amount of dwellings originally passed are built. Has anyone thought about the number of multi storey apartments which are in the process of being built on the old Oldchurch site, these alone will have a major impact on the already overcrowded Queens hospital, railway & transport system etc etc.
I did put this info on the actions side of the website and I’m not sure if people have seen it but felt it better placed here. I would be interested to see how the local council and the developers will meet the criteria laid down and who will be tasked to oversee this. The SHW website is excellent but what are our next steps ? how much sway do our councillors have on the decision? how do we keep this high profile?
I found this link to the government website on housing that may be of use when raising objections (Cut and paste link to read whole document)
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/doc/Homesforthefuture
Section 3
Good amenities: New settlements should also be attractive places with good quality neighbourhoods and green public space. They must provide good local infrastructure – transport, schools, healthcare and community facilities. Such provision will be central to our plans, and we are setting out new procedures for councils and government departments to plan for new schools, new health facilities and improved transport facilities.
Chapter 5 Infrastructure
1. It is vital that people have access to good schools, healthcare, transport and other community facilities when they move into a new home. Local authorities can often agree how such facilities are provided as part of the planning process, ensuring a fair contribution by developers to the local infrastructure.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:23 am
There is a link to the petition on the right under the heading “Take Action”
March 11th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Thanks should go to Ron Ower of the local Ratepayers Assn who keeps us informed on this matter I agree totally that over 800 new houses cannot be supported by the local infrastructure (schools, Doctor- surgeries and especially the extra cars it would bring to Gubbins Lane. The proposals are totally inappropriate.
WHY IS THIS SITE SO MINISCULE -I CANT READ THE COMMENTS.
Barrie Cannon
PS I came here as I was told there is a petition I could sign –where is it ?
March 10th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
John - I dont think families with children are the target demographic with this development of predominantly one bed apartments with no gardens!
March 10th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
While Nigel obviously has heart-felt objections, any campaign needs to offer a reasonable alternative to Countryside’s current proposals. Just blindly and noisily objecting to any development will surely result in the campaign being dismissed as ‘nimbyism’.
It is also dangerous to assume that all local residents object to more houses in the area, those with children looking for their own homes would probably welcome some economic housing in the area.
The impression I get, talking to friends and neighbours, is that people would welcome some development on the former HW Hospital site, just not the intensity in the latest proposals.
By the way, I’m old enough to remember the local objections, which were unsuccessful, to the maternity block and boiler rooms built during the expansion of the hospital!
March 10th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
To respond to ‘hwr’, I was hoping to point out that any campaign needs to be careful what they wish for.
I agree that the development on the HW site needs to be “in context” (if that is the correct phrase) with the rest of HW. However, I understand that the provision of “social housing” on a proportion of any development is a requirement of the GLA and the Mayor, outside the direct control of the LBH.
Please remember that a lot of residents in the HW area have had successive, and indeed successful, campaigns to preserve the ‘Green Belt’ bordering the borough.
March 9th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
In response to “john”….I agree there could be worse proposals, and parkland would be an unrealistic expectation. The argument against this proposal is the sheer volume of properties crammed into the space via multiple high-rise blocks of flats. It will turn a “village” into just another extension of the urban metropolis….not something that most of the residents wanted when they moved here!
March 9th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
There is real strength of feeling on this issue but HOW do we convert it into a live campaign? Should we be looking to have EVERY house/premises in the neighbourhood sporting an anti-Countryside poster? How do we ensure that our deep seated opposition to these proposals are heard when the Planning Application is considered by the Council? Are people prepared to PROTEST by turning up and voicing /demonstrating opposition to these unthinking, callous, neighbourhood wrecking proposals? I feel it is important that our 3 local Councillors are SEEN to be actively supporting the campaign. Call a public meeting on the issue if need be. WE HAVE TO FIGHT THIS IN EVERY WAY WE CAN.
March 8th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
As you may know the only enterprises remaining on the old Harold Wood Hospital site are the Disablement Services Centre (which has been run down in recent years), the University Of South Bank nursing campus, and the McKesson Computer Centre. The latter is earmarked for closure towards the end of 2008, releasing more land for the developers. I understand that the original idea was for other NHS entities would have taken over parts of the newer hospital buildings, but no trust or service regarded the buildings or location as suitable, thus releasing the extra area for Countryside to develop, as proposed in the latest plans.
If the current development is not possible, what are the alternatives? The older proposals for around 450 homes would still have had a significant impact on the Harold Wood area. It’s unrealistic to expect that Countryside would wish to return the site to parkland, so I cannot see any alternatives aside from housing, a business park or retail developments.
Of course, CrossRail is still looking for a site near the railway line…
I’ve lived in HW for nearly 50 years, and while I can understand and indeed agree with the opposition to the development, I feel I have to play “devil’s advocate” and suggest that the HW Hospital site for housing is probably the “least worst” of the alternatives.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:40 am
I am just so sad and angry at the thought of this development. How dare some out-of-town developers come in and ruin this lovely place, with obviously no thought to any of it. I have written to the various councillors mentioned in previous postings, and am awaiting a response. FYI - these were my comments:
“I am writing as an extremely concerned resident, about the scale of the HW Hospital development. Anything on even half this scale would be detrimental to the general standard of life here, and there are absolutely NO benefits to anyone - except of course the developers. Does no one think of the residents - how on earth will we cope with what could be 1,000 to 2,000 more people in an already crowded area? HW is a lovely little place to live, and we settled here four years ago with our two young children, hoping they would grow up here. They love their local school - HW Primary, and it would be such a shame, not to mention the cost and stress, to move - which i would have to do if this development went ahead as planned. How on earth will the schools, doctors, dentists, train station and roads cope? Basically, they won’t! I cannot believe that you as councillors do not have our best interests at heart - if you do PLEASE do everything in your power to stop this ridiculous proposal.”
March 3rd, 2008 at 10:09 pm
the plan layout is available on the “publication from countryside” link (http://www.saveharoldwood.org.uk/?page_id=19). If anyone has further details, please let us know by using the “Contact” link on the right —>
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Unfortunately I didn’t get to the consultation so do not know what eye sores are being planned for the area, apart from the size of the development. I have been on Countryside’s website, cannot find anything. Does anyone know of a website where I can view the designs of what is being proposed?
February 28th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
As I have only just found out about this site I feel I must add my name to the petition against the proposed development on the land that was previously Harold Wood Hospital. The consultation days were of little use to anyone except the developers who were quick to sideline any relevant questions. The infa structure of Harold Wood cannot sustain the proposed development with the increased population and traffic congestion and upheaval that will be caused by site traffic. But as I was informed Countryside are a business and they have to make money. Herein lies the crux of the matter.
D Smith. Concerned resident
February 12th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
It is classified as a “Ward” . Not sure how that affects the building limits though. Anyone else?
February 12th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Has anyone looked into the clacification of Harold Wood. Is it a Village or Town as this will also determine how many properties are allowed in the area. There must be some loop-hole that will not let these developers ruin Harold Wood.
February 5th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Unfortunately I never got the time to go to the 3 day communutiy consultation, but after reading some of the other replies, I am glad I didn’t. There doesn’t appear to be any proper debate or consultation at all.
The council seriously need to review any decision to build another 400 houses or flats, and need to take into consideration the impact that many houses and cars will have an impact on the local services (schools/trains/roads/doctors etc). If the roads are directed out of Gubbins Lane or out through Whitelands way, either way this will have a major impact on the traffic flow that is already at breaking point due to the tesco’s volume.
If these plans go ahead I feel more and more residents will be simply be driven out, and will choose to live somewhere else. I know I certainly will !
But no doubt when there is this kind of money involved, and the chance to make so much more for both the council and countryside, the residents will have no say, and the plans will go ahead be railroaded through as planned. There needs to be a serious debate with all involved to come to a compromise that suits all parties, and doesn’t turn the area into a dumping ground.
We all know every area needs more housing, but let’s get serious on the numbers please, and build the development to match and blend in with the existing houses.
February 5th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
i’m totaly against this development the amount of dellings to be plced on this site will ruin a loverly little part of essex much to much traffic not enough doctors/schools/ how they think they can double the orginal plannig is beyond me the council should be ashamed of it’s self if it passes it( unless there is somethink esle behind it all.
yours steve brobyn
February 5th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
I attended the display at the Grange, complete the questionnaire and sent it to Holborn and have written to Ron Ower (RA) so far. I suggested that negotiations should take place between LBH, TfL and Tescos about opening up access to the Supermarket via Bryant Avenue which might relieve some of the awful congestion in Whitelands/Lister Avenue. The original planning application was restricted to 423 because of over density, no infrastructure and particularly difficulty over traffic volume - nothing to do with the site being larger now. Of all those wearing badges that evening I could find no-one living in Harold Wood so it is difficult for them to understand what they are trying to inflict on us.Everything aspect is overloaded and the only beneficiaries are people like Tescos (? 2500 more customers and ONE who will have more passengers (heaven forbid!). There is another piece of land on a long lease which houses the IT centre, School of Nursing and disabled equipment which I,m sure Countryside Properties w ill be itching to get their fingers opn which will exacerbate the problem eventually. We must try and get an open meeting and get a compromise here on this proposal as it is completely unsuitable as is.
February 4th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
I agree - the consultation simply raised more questions. I am trying to find out who is ultimatly responsible for approving developments of this size. Does anyone know? I am speaking to the Havering Residents Association this week….will post information as I get it
February 4th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Thank you for this web-site.
There are many issues that are of major concern to me surrounding such a large development in Harold Wood. Many of my own concerns have already been raised by others on this site. I suspect that this proposal will add about 2,000 more people into the area - by my calculations an increase of about 16%.
For me, the most immediate and important issue is for the people of Harold Wood to be given opportunity to hear a complete presentation from the developers/ LB Havering and to properly discuss and debate this proposed development in some kind of collective forum.
Such a setting would allow us all to hear each others views on this matter and give both the developers and the local authority some clear understanding of how we view these proposals and perhaps develop a better and acceptable way forward.
It is my view that the recent “consultation” exercise held over 3 days in January was seriously flawed, as it failed to allow proper and informed debate and conversation. Due to the large numbers attending it was not possible to get any proper idea of the proposals and real informed conversation did not appear to be happening - it certainly didn’t work for me, as I left with more questions than I had arrived with.
I wonder if others have similar views.
February 3rd, 2008 at 8:52 pm
We gotta get out of this place
If it’s the last thing we ever do
We gotta get out of this place
‘Cause Harold Wood People, there’s a better life for me and you
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:21 am
We moved into the area two years ago after deciding to settle with the intention to start a family here. As my partner grew up in the area, and with his knowledge of growing up in Harold Wood we thought it was a good move. With a primary school within 3 minutes walking distance, a secondary school within a 5 minutes drive and access to all the necessary amenities, we thought that we had made the best choice! Now expecting our first child, we were horrored to find out that an enourmous housing estate is being built on the old Harold Wood Hospital site. This will obviously now cause problems with getting our child into the schools we had hoped they would attend, because they will now be bursting at the seams by the time we come to arrange schooling for our child. This will also have a huge effect on the availability to get GP appointments which are already a struggle. After enquiring about the development, we were then again shocked to find that Hackney and Newham council have placed a bid to purchase property on the site. Does this mean that Harold Wood is going to become a dumping ground for the unwanted residents of the two Boroughs? My partner and I have now come to the conclusion that we have no alternative but to move out of the area within the next few years, so we are able to move to an area where we don’t have to worry about travelling great distances to get our child into a school, and won’t become as packed as a sardine can!
February 1st, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Thank you for setting up this web-site . Can a meeting be arranged for people interested in delivering leaflets about this subject to all residents of Harold wood?
I sent the following e-mail to our MP ,but as yet no reply from her.
Dear Mrs Watkinson,
I and my husband are both very concerned about the proposed development of the Harold Wood Hospital Site. We visited the public consultancy held recently at the Hospital and feel very strongly about the number of homes that are proposed to be erected there.
Harold Wood was a village and, in fact, many residents still call it such. So to erect four, six and eight story blocks of flats is completely out of context with the area and will be a real BLOT on the landscape. Even the Health service reverted to low rise, after the hideous maternity block was built ( in the sixties).
Only this morning I tried to get out of Harold Wood and it took over thirty five minutes to get from The Drive to the traffic lights at the junction of Squirrels Heath Road and the Southend Arterial Road. So how long will it take when the new estate is built?
I would dearly like to know how much was paid to the Health Authorities for each of the three sites, Romleigh Park, The Tesco housing site and now the rest of the hospital site?
What was this money used for and has it been of benefit to the sick residents of Havering?
I understand that people need housing, but surely it should not be to detriment of the existing population. I am sure residents would not object to low rise property. This is not a high rise area and I find these plans totally unreasonable.
Let’s hope we can rely on our M.P’s and local Authority to help all parties come to a satisfactory solution.
Yours simcerely
Mrs J A Allan & Mr D W Allan
6 The Drive
Harold Wood
RM3 0DU
February 1st, 2008 at 2:54 pm
If families move into this area, where will their children go to school? The Queens Hospital is already overcrowded, and our local maternity services are third from bottom rated in whole country because of lack of qualified midwives. Where will these families go when they need hospitals, and where will their babies be delivered.
Our area is already so overcrowded, how will the local services cope?
Not only should the larger amount of houses be rejected, but the original plan should be rejected too.
February 1st, 2008 at 2:26 pm
The ratio of houses/flats proposed is completely wrong in this area. When I moved here nearly 30 years ago I was told there was about 8,000 people in Harold Wood, Countryside will be adding around another 2,000 on to what the total is now with no real promised provision of doctors’ surgeries etc. Queen’s Hospital was not designed to cope with all these extra people, as well as other developments in our borough, and those nearby for whom it also caters. This site should never have been sold off for housing in the first place as, with all the new developments around, the need for another hospital will be crucial in the next few years and where will it be built? Perhaps what remains of our parks will be sold to this end! I am not against development and people must be housed but not on this scale in such an unsuitable area. Harold Wood is already gridlocked at certain times of the day and the extra cars generated in this development will not help the situation.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Like many of you I have already written to all of our Councillors, GLA Member and MP etc. The responses I have received so far are laughable to say the least! I quote ‘Unfortunately the power that local councils have with regard to such matters is very limited but I will do my best.’ received from Pam light (14.01.08) ‘Please be assured that Cllr Light and myself are looking into the concerns that you and other residents have raised about the hospital development.’ received from Lesley Kelly (22.01.08). But the most ridiculous response that I have received so far is the one from our esteemed MP Angela Watkinson, I quote:
” I have not seen any plans, so I cannot comment on the visual impact, but the development you describe sounds an extremely dense development” she closes her letter by saying “Although as an MP I do not have any authority over the local council or the NHS I do keep close working relationships with both. I shall make enquiries as to the status of this development proposal and if such an application has been received by the council, I shall pass all objections I receive from constituents to the Chief Planner”
So in summary our local Councillors tell us that they are powerless, and our MP is so completely oblivious to what is going on in her constituency that she is totally unaware of the development!!!!! Does she not realise that it is unacceptable for her to admit that she does not keep abreast of events in Harold Wood, after all it has been known for 5 or 6 years that the Hospital would close and the site developed. Despite these poor responses we must keep the pressure on these people (they are our elected representatives God Help us!!!!) as well as the planners and GLA.
I will keep you posted of any further responses, and will be happy to provide copies of the full transcripts if anyone would like to see them.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:32 am
I do not live in Harold Wood, but in Hornchurch close to The Drill, and believe that this affects everyone in the borough, not only those in Harold Wood. Not only will this have an immediate disastrous effect on our services, transport, health services and emergency services etc. but what happens in 10 years time when those that are living in the 800 houses start to spread out, and their children want to move out into their own accommodation? More houses will have to be built in the area to cope with this extra demand. If this development goes ahead, developers will be buying up every piece of land in the borough that it can lay its hands on to build anything they like, without any consideration whatsoever to local people. A comment was made that the developers, Countryside, are our neighbours, being based in Brentwood. I wonder where the Chief Exec of Countryside actually lives? Probably not in Brentwood but in an area where he or she will not be affected by this or any other new development. Ordinary people are getting sick and tired of being treated this way, it was bad enough that they had to get rid of Harold Wood Hospital in the first place, but to do this is absolutely despicable!
January 29th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Local residents must do all they can to reject this development. I just cannot see one plus for the people of Harold Wood.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
At the consultation they opened the opportunity for comments. What they did not make explicit is when the comments need to be received. When pressed, I was informed that they should be in within 2 weeks of the consultation since they( the Developers) are putting in their proposal to Havering Council by February. The plan is to start work on the site in mid-March.
Action: Send your comments to them NOW and more importantly send a copy to the Local Councillors and Havering Council. ( As done by one of the contributors above). Do remember to send a copy as we cannot realistically expect these Consultants who ct for the Developers to be totally impartial in this consultation process.
Having said that, thank you for this website for which Harold Wood residents and all affected by this development should continue to contribute and comment.
January 28th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Please sign my dad’s petiton (Barry Hall of the Ridgeway, Harold Wood)
regarding the planned development in Harold Wood)
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/harold-wood-hospital-site.html
Did anyone read his letter in the Romford Recorder last week?
January 28th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
How can this be allowed ?????
First 480 dwellings were opposed, then 2 plant rooms were opposed, then 423 dwellings went to a public consultation even though it was clearly stated in the opposing letters that a deveolpment of this size is in clear contradiction to local council policy and there wasn’t sufficient infrastructure in place to cope with such a major development. e.g. Gubbins Lane & Squirrels Heath Road already have unacceptable levels of congestion creating a very high level of air polution, more important If I was to add the over burdening of doctors surgeries, clinics, schools, public transport, extra gas & electric consumption, emergency services. how can 800 dwellings, including 9 storey flats which could total a possible 1600-2000 extra adults & children on this site all with at least one or 2 cars be good, not only for Harold Wood but the environment as a whole. as stated one hospital has been built to replace 2 existing hospitals which already has a lower bed count and the next nearest hospital is over 5 miles away. Who will this benefit. It wont be the local residents or the new residents as they to will soon suffer in the same way. So I feel that someone needs to step in on behalf of the local residents to stop this increase in the proposed development from the existing 423 dwellings which again reiterating the above has been agreed, against the wishes of the HW residents.
I believe the only persons to benefit will be the developers who will sell the 800 homes and the council who allowed this developement as they will recoup another 800 council tax payments.
January 27th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Thanks K Warnett. I have posted an email Angela
January 27th, 2008 at 4:16 am
This is a major concern.
I am sure I speak for most existing residents and thought that building 460+ homes was already too much. However somehow they, Countryside, managed to get it passed. Now to hear it is being planned to developed into 800 sites is totally unacceptable.
This smacks of the classic ploy many developers do. Get the planning permission to build on the site and then put in a further plan to develop more.
I urge all residents of Harold Wood to stand up for their communnity and say no to this latest proposal. We all need to write to our local councillors and our MP Angela Watkinson.
Her email address is watkinsona@parliament.uk
Let the fight for the right to stop over population of our area commence!
January 26th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Very dissapointed, cant believe that the people in charge think this is acceptable.
It`s all about money,money,money and not about the community. I was at the original meeting and was informed that nothing over 3 storeys would be built, let only doubling the dwellings!!!!!
Does anyone remember a resident in another borough stopped a propsed development due to it having a bad impact on the enviroment?
January 26th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
In addition to the details on the local contacts page, the three Harold Wood Ward councillors do have email addresses as follows:
jonathan.coles@havering.gov.uk
lesley.kelly@havering.gov.uk
pam.light@havering.gov.uk
January 26th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Here is a copy of the letter that I have sent to countryside properties
Countryside Properties
Atisreal
90 Chancery Lane
London
WC2A 1EU
Dear Sirs,
Re: Development of Harold Wood Hospital site
Following the community consultation meeting held at The Grange in Harold Wood last week I would like to take this opportunity to make comment on the plans for the site.
Harold Wood is a reasonably quiet area. Many of the people, like myself, have lived here most of their lives. Whenever I meet new people from Harold Wood they always have a connection with a friend or relative. We do have problems, like any other community, with some vandalism and youths gathering in parks but, on the whole there are a places a lot worse off than us.
I appreciate that the land will be built on, but I have concerns regarding the affect that the amount and type of housing will have on our community. The consultant, who spoke to me on Saturday, stated that there will be 60% flats and 40% houses. He, also, told me that the plans allowed for small groups of houses to be built together to promote a sense of community which I agree with. But when I said that people in flats do not interact in the same way he said that is human nature! I feel that the number of flats being built is not necessary and that the need of the area is for houses with gardens. Children, who have a garden are less likely to be obese and are brighter and more social in general than children who are bought up in blocks of flats. When I asked where the children, who live in the flats, are going to play your rep said on the grassy area around the flats. He is obviously not a father as no parent has the time to sit outside for hours while their children play, nor would they allow a small child out on their own.
We are constantly being reminded of our impact on the environment. More flats would mean more cars driving in and out of the area. During the weekend it is very difficult to drive round Whitelands Way and Bryant Avenue. This is already a problem for existing residents and the traffic during rush hour and school runs is really busy. The extra traffic will add to noise and air pollution.
Recently, I have noticed more community police around the area, but we do not have a large police station at Harold Hill and it is not a 24hr station. Another 800 more properties will put a strain on an already stretched police service.
Harold Wood hospital and Oldchurch Hospitals have been closed and Queens has opened, with fewer beds available. The local health authority is already looking at down grading King George’s Hospital A&E to minor injuries only. Where are all the new people going go? There is not enough beds for the current population let alone the new residents!
I am aware of the future plans for health to try and cut the stay in hospitals, but this does not stop people from becoming ill or having accidents. We also only have two doctor’s surgeries in the area. Both are over subscribed and it is difficult to get registered at either of these surgeries. Looking at the plans there is no obvious provision for a doctor or dentist surgery.
The station at Harold Wood is a fairly busy station it is the last in zone 6, so we get people from Brentwood and Shenfield using it as well. It is a small station. The trains are already over crowded - when they run on time. How are they going to cope with the larger number of people using them?
Thank you for taking time to read my email. I have copied it to local councillors and the planning department at Havering Council.
Yours faithfully,
January 26th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
l do not believe that due consideration has been taken into account, for the increase in social requirements in respect of schools, transport, access to and from the new site via Gubbins Lane.
How can the increase in housing from 450 to 850 be justified, with the increase in population how will the doctors surgeries cope? Do you intend paying for additional surgeries?
With the increase in traffic why will there only be one entrance for cars, delivery vans etc., this will cause major congestion into Gubbins Lane and the surrounding area what is the stratergy to combat this extra traffic?
With the intended high development of flats where are the children supposed to play? Surely this will lead to more youths hanging around the street corners. Is there any intention of providing facilities such as youth clubs etc., for these new families.
January 26th, 2008 at 2:17 am
9 storey tower block in a small community! Its disgusting