Saturday, 22 February 2014

The Brunel House Development: Rearing It’s Head, Again

You know, I’m happily happy.

Well … 

Content, let’s put it that way.

Hmmm … 

Which is possibly the strangest way of putting.

But let’s put it this way: life could be a lot better.   But could be a lot worse.

Either way … ?

Either way, life is quiet at the moment.

Especially when you consider the fact that Rollason Way, and the collection of street’s that it’s on, are quiet.

Especially when you consider the fact that — when I moved in, some seven years ago, now — Rollason Way, itself, was still being built.   My end of the street had been finished: the other hadn’t.

In fact, Adlington House was only finished within the last year.

The area’s taken it’s time.

But it’s now built.
 There’s still one point of contention: and it’s one that’s been a contentious point for a while.

As you’ll know if you’ve been following me for a while, you’ll know that Brentwood Council gave planning permission to developers, Taylor Wimpey, to build a mixed, six storey, development.   One that’s been a mixture of retail, office, and residential, as various shades of development have gone through Brentwood Council’s planning application process.

Something I know I’ve written about, before, spoken out against … 

And still feel that Brentwood Council has completely us down about.


Now, the last time I wrote about the Brunel House part of Saint James Road … ?

The last time I wrote about this, Taylor Wimpey had been granted extended permission to a six storey building, consisting of office, residential and retail units.
Which is the source of my mixed feelings at this precise moment.

You see, I went into town, yesterday.

To see a notice up on the fence around the area next to Brunel House that Taylor Wimpey had sought permission to build on.

There was a notice up: Ref: 14/00017/FUL

One that stated they were seeking permission to extend vary or change the condition 10 of the plans filed under 05/00989/FUL.

In other words, Taylor Wimpey want another three years to build this block.

My feelings … ?

Are a mixture of anger at the fact the residents of the area are to go through this farce: again.

And resignation.

Having objected to the plans, before now, and seen permission granted, frankly, I fully expect to see it granted again: with objections to the building ignored.

As they have been, all along.


Which of course, brings me to my next point.

You see, I went out, yesterday, to head to town to get some milk and a loaf of bread.

Which is when I noticed the sign up about Taylor Wimpey’s renewed planning application.

I have to admit, it was the first time I can remember seeing it.

Now that could be a simple mistake on my part.

But one or two other people I’ve spoken too, also saw it there, yesterday: and have also quietly said they couldn’t remember noticing it there, before yesterday, either.

Now, I saw the notice when I went to town, around 11ish.

The thing wasn’t there when I came back, some time between 12 and 1 o’clock, yesterday afternoon.

Whether it had been removed or been blown away in yesterday’s strong wind, I couldn’t tell you: although the side of me that thinks badly of the whole Brunel House development, thinks that someone had taken the notice down.

It had been pinned to the fence with four heavy duty tacks, after all.

On top of THAT, the sign — as you can hopefully make out in the photos I took — gives the closing date for objections to the plan as the 21st February, 2014.

In other words, the sign I saw, yesterday, about Taylor Wimpey’s plans for that patch of ground … 

Gave us residents until yesterday to object to Taylor Wimpey’s plans.

Personally … ?

This is one of the few times I AM glad I’m out of a job.

I immediately wrote an email to object to the plans and sent it to Brentwood Council’s Planning Office.

Here’s the text of that email.
Dear Sir,
I’m writing to object to plans posted in Saint James Road, next to Brunel House — for a an extension to plans to put up a mixed retail and residential unit, Ref 14/00017/FUL — and wish to object.
This particular plan is an extension to an earlier one — 05/00989/FUL — to which I also objected.
My objections are identical to the ones I have already raised, on previous applications.
Firstly, traffic congestion.
As officers will note from the attached photos, the Saint James Road/Chase Road/Rollason Way area already has many cars parked both on and off street.
I believe that, although the plans include a certain amount of parking for both the residential and office uses, there will be an amount of overflow.   Made worse, given the reduction in buses since the last time the plans were up for renewal.
I also still feel that that the congestion — as it stands — will impede emergency vehicle access.   In exactly the same way that delivery vehicles are already seriously impeded, which I see from my window every day of the week.
Something I’ve already written about several times, on my blog.   I should ALSO add I’ve had at least one conversation with a representative of Essex County Fire Services — back in 2010 — that the heavy parking in the area would could prove to be trouble.
With all this in mind ... ?
With all this in mind, I wish to register my objections to Taylor Wimpey, and their agents, having Condition 10 of their plans varied, extended or changed.
Paul Downie,
You can also read it on Google Docs.


Now, I know it’s possibly not going to do much good.

But I’d ask you, if you’re a fellow resident, to contact Brentwood Council’s planning office, yourself: writing both to object to the plans, AND to complaint about how you and I weren’t informed about it a lot earlier.

Now … 

Here’s hoping we can put a stop to this.

Although personally … ?

I feel we may be out of luck.

Brentwood Council obviously wants Taylor Wimpey to build this, AND over the objections of its voters.

No comments: