I call on those residnets to STOP being so uncaring and ask thew council to think what those residents are calling for .. This is for individuals who through no fault of their own, have become homeless and from being from a homeless background and also being in nurse training and now running an alcohol support organisation in Blackpool, there are many individuals needs accomodation OR would you prefer them sleeping in your shed or doorway ? You are very uncaring for trying to STOP this and i will be willing to fight FOR this , as many of my clients are homeless and trying to get settled in life and those residenets are stopping a life that these individuals need as well as i needed a chance a few years ago when i was homeless - STOP THE RESIDENTS CALLING TO STOP THIS CARING DEVELOPMENT

I agree with Brian's comments, however the media is often to blame for this narrow minded and uncaring view. I wouldn't mind betting that a large number of those objecting are well heeled pensioners. Perhaps if you had the heartbreak of having a loved one unable to find decent affordable rented accommodation when the housing lists have doubled over the past couple of years. I hope the Councillors have enough of a backbone to say enough is enough. Every housing development proposed whether it be this or private development is howled down by narrow minded NIMBYist bigoted twits. Why not give them something to really moan about and build a substance misuse and alchohol dependancy unit.

if you are that bothered about people protesting then let them build it next to your house and watch your house devalue it price.
you are concerned about these people until they move into your street.
why should you force this on others.
let them move next to brians house in blackpool

Brian. If you knew more about the facts of this matter you might have a different view. No one wants to stop helping local people who temporarily find themselves homeless.

Firstly the land is presently employment land, not residential. It is an industrial site. The loss of employment opportunity will impact on local people and the cluster of shops that were supported by the workers. They are right to be concerned, as is the St Anne's Town Council who opposed the loss of employment land.

Secondly, this is not Fylde Council being caring or altruistic. This is a key part of their cynical asset stripping exercise to fund a new Town Hall which no one apart from John Coombes and his supporters want. This hostel scheme makes up what is known as the "affordable element" of a larger package that includes luxury flats on other Council owned land.

Third, the homeless need in Fylde has been overstated - arguably in order to justify the sale above. The actual allocation to homeless people will at times mean there are more spaces at the proposed hostel than there are people who meet the criteria to be accommodated.

Fourthly, when you have a fluctuating need, and the provision is not intended to be permanent solution, but is simply a transient arrangement en route to permanent accommodation (as is proposed here), it makes no sense at all to have a fixed number of accommodation units. Better - for all sorts of other reasons as well - to meet the need with an almost infinite stock of B&B's who are also local businesses and willing to provide accommodation. This also avoids the ghettoisation for those accommodated within a secure block surrounded by an 8' steel security fence.

You shouldn't mix up caring and cash. This is about Fylde maximising its income from other sites and granting itself planning permission on land that will multiply its value by a factor of ten or thereabouts, as soon as it has changes its own planning rules to allow it to do so.