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.

Yours,

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.

The Brunel House Stitch-up

Can I be brutally frank, here, and name and shame a couple of Brentwood councillor’s … ?

Wise or otherwise-*, I believe I should.

This picture shows Councillor’s Braid and Parker^˜ at tonight’s planning meeting about the development next to Brunel House, to be built by Taylor Wimpey.

It has, not to put to fine a point on it, been approved.

And I personally believe that these two councillors, along with the nine others who voted to approve it — granted with amendments — have blood on their hands.

Strong language … ?

No, not really.

Just accurate, in my belief.

☱☲☴☲☱

You’re possibly wondering what on EARTH I’m talking about, aren’t you … ?

Well, as I mentioned earlier, I’ve been writing —possibly campaigning— against the extra development  planned for the patch of empty ground at the junction of Station Approach and Saint James Road.

With THAT in mind, I was at the planning meeting tonight, that was due to vote either for or against approving the plans: for a mixed use development of offices, shops and flats.

And a creche!

☱☲☴☲☱

Unlike last time this came before the planning committee … ?

Unlike last time, the Brunel House development actually was up fairly early in the order of business: so we got to our bit fairly quickly.

Including tonight’s objector, Laura Ngo, who was there with her partner, and who lives just around the corner in Brunel House.

Good job she did, too, I thought: although she, like I, the last time, was ‘hurried up’, needlessly by the Chairmanº: whilst the Taylor Wimpey rep seemed to waffle on for the same length of time as she did.

☱☲☴☲☱

That’s not quite what got me.

What got me was some of the arguments I heard from Councillors Braid and Parkerª: who I’ve learnt both represent wards quite some distance from Brentwood West.

ALL of whom, emphasised the need for extra housing in Brentwood: but NONE of whom seemed to realise that there’s been some 50 or so new build flats at the other end of Rollason Way.

I will give credit where credit is due.

Councillor Russell‡, one of the Conservative members for Brentwood West did move to refuse the motion.   And Councillor Chilvers did speak out against it, although the rules forbade her from voting†.

I’ve also got to give Councillor Golding credit for forcing the committee to put the amendments in place to force them to put modified highway rules into place, AND give plaudits to Councillor Vicky Davies‡, who made the very good point that there’s no mention of WHERE any green space was to be put: something that Taylor Wimpey had offered.

☱☲☴☲☱

In the end … ?

In the end, what’s been approved is the plans I showed you earlier.

But — at Councillor Golding’s insistence — with the proviso that the whole of Saint James Road have double yellow lines: be turned into a no parking zone, for those of my readers not familiar with UK traffic markings.

Like I said, I’ll give her credit with being the only councillor who’s managed to get a concession on this worked into the plans.

Although I personally think that those double yellow lines will lead not to eased parking in Saint James Road.

It will lead, instead, to MORE congestion in Wharf Road, Rollason Way, Chase Road, Railway Square AND King’s Chase.

It will ALSO seriously congest, still further, the parking problem in those roads.   Rollason Way’s parking areas will have problem, in particular, I fell, as will Chase Road.

And still — STILL — hamper emergency vehicle access to those three roads.

Which is why I think those named councillors I named earlier — Sparling, Braid and Parker in particular — quite simply have blood on their hands.

☱☲☴☲☱

OK, OK … 

Maybe that’s being a bit strong.

However … ?

Despite the traffic measure included, I feel that the plans going ahead, frankly, STILL impedes emergency vehicle access to the area.

“Blood on their Hands” may be a bit strong.

As, indeed, is accusing them of murder, manslaughter or massacre.

Or butchery, even.

But I DO think that they’ve made a major contribution to someones death by fire: whether that fire be accidental or deliberate.

Those deaths will be on their heads.

I hope those councillors can sleep, as and when those deaths happen.

*        Unwise in the sense that it may well get me sued.   I am frankly, not bothered, at this precise moment.   Frankly … ?   The Kronos quartet album playing in the background is too good to spoil, and this is too important to worry.

º        Councillor Roger McCheyne, if I’ve got it right.

ª        Councillor Sparling also seemed to raise similar points, I should add.

†        Yes, I know there’s good reason for those rules, Karen: but I, for one, am disappointed they’re in place.   Their absence would’ve meant you, and several other voting members of the committee, would have swung this in favour of the people of Brentwood.

‡        Both of whom voted against, and showed character in doing so.

^        Their was also one Councillor who spoke, tonight — whose name I didn’t catch — who made the point that Brentwood tax payers would have to foot the bill if the council refused the plans, and the developer appealed.   Personally … ?   For what ever reason this councillor made the point, I feel a certain measure of cowardice was involved: from where I’m sitting, a local councillor has a responsibility to help serve his constituency.  That includes defending it from a central government of his own or opposition parties.

˜        I’ve since been informed that the two councillors are Councillors Parker and Baker: I’m also informed by Councillor Davies that Councillor Braid.   I’ll apologise, now if I’ve caused any offense: but still feel that the evening reflects poorly on those who voted to pass this.