Showing posts with label Parking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Parking. Show all posts

Tuesday, 3 February 2015

Rollason Way: Congestion and Emergencies

You know, it’s been a while since I’ve written purely  about stuff other than films, or Dr Who.

Or posted up things other than the various Daily and Weekly Teasers.

Hopefully … ?

Hopefully, you’re enjoying those, by the way.
Either way?

Either way, a change of occasional pace — and a recognition that I live in a small, but growing, town — is nice.

As a the occasional reference to things OTHER than what’s on TV: or at the movies.

But, as I’m sure you’re aware … ?

As I’m sure you’re aware, I live in Brentwood: in Essex.

A small town best known for being one of the places where the Peasant’s Revolt started, way back when.

And where hit TV show, The Only Way Is Essex is filmed.

God help us!

At ANY rate … ?

You’ll possibly also be aware that I live on a road called Rollason Way: a road and estate that’s only been completed within the past few years.

An estate, in case you didn’t know, that’s a mixture of both privately owned and socially housed residents.
And an estate that’s always had its issues with parking.

The amount of over-parking in the area … ?

Has always been of some concern to me.

I’ve always personally felt the sheer number of parked cars on my street — some residents who can’t get into the limited carparks, some commuters who can’t get or afford spaces elsewhere — would block emergency vehicle access.

Indeed, that’s something an un-named spokesman told me was an issue, some five years ago: back when Rollason Way was a lot less crowded.

~≈Ê≈~

Friday, 9 January 2015

The Friday Question Set — 9-1-2015


You know, there’s a lot going on in France, at the moment.

Honestly, the gunmen who attacked Charlie Hebdo holed up in a printshop in a town in Northern France, and a gunman suspect a police woman, the same day, now seemingly holding hostages in a kosher supermarket in Paris!

Now is POSSIBLY not a good time to mention a little bit of news on my street: as I suspect it’ll get swamped.

But at any rate?

At ANY rate, I’ve just noticed a poster that’s been put on quite a few lamp-posts and French windows in my street.

The pictured one, from Essex County Fire Service: telling anyone parking in our street to do so, carefully.

And to be aware not doing so would block access for emergency vehicles.

Personally … ?

Personally, I’m grateful to whoever’s organised that.

But whoever’s organised these posters has addressed the emergency vehicle access I know I’ve been concerned about for years.

It may not do much.   But I hope these are maintained.

It means we can now say, people have been told … !

~≈Ÿ≈~

Saturday, 21 June 2014

Parking Permits In Rollason Way.


You know, Rollason Way — the street where I live — is sort of nice.

Kind of.

Sort of kind of.

OK, it s not perfect.

But, generally … ?

It’s not bad: and certainly better than some places where I’ve lived.

However, as I and many other’s will tell you, the parking is both ridiculous: and has been since the first residents moved in.


~≈Â≈~

Saturday, 31 May 2014

The Daily Teaser — 31-5-2014



How long have you been following my blog … ?

A while, I hope.

But, at any rate, if you have, you’ll know I live in a street in Brentwood called Rollason Way: a relatively recently built part of town.

Which has — in all the years I’ve lived here* — has never had enough parking for residents.

I’ve not double checked what the new carparks at the end of the street have done to the figures: but, at one point, we had ¾ of a parking space per resident.   (Some reports say more: they say ⅘ of a parking space.)

We’ve also got a lot of people — many of whom seem to be visitors to the area — who park on the pavement.

I’ve personally have always felt that’s hazardous.   And still do.   I feel it impedes emergency vehicle access to Rollason Way: something that will kill someone, at some point.

Part of the issue?   Is that Essex Council have not, as yet, taken control of Rollason Way.   Meaning that there’s no formal parking controls: nor any way of handing out parking tickets.

One (possibly) good thing?   Crest Nicholson, the company who built Rollason Way and the surrounding area, have hired a parking management company: and put up the (pictured) signs, emphasising the fines that will be handed out to owners of cars parking on the pavement.

Granted, I’ve not seen any one handing out tickets, yet: hopefully that won’t be long.

I can only hope the result will be the offending cars park somewhere else.

Rather than move a few inches, to park on the road!

That will make things seriously worse.

~≈Ê≈~

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.
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.

Friday, 22 March 2013

The Daily Teaser — 22-3-2013


It’s official!   The Rollason Way parking saga isn’t over.

Seemingly, we’re getting a whole parcel of new parking restrictions — ‘No Waiting’ ones, with, hopefully, double-yellow lines  — coming into playing: from the entrance way of Rollason Way, all the way down to Wilkinson House, at the bottom of the road.

HOPEFULLY, it’ll have the effect of freeing up the roadway, and give emergency vehicles greater access to the are.   

What sort of effect it’ll have on the carparks in the are, I don’t know.

Either way … ?   I wasn’t surprised to see this tweet from Councillor Chilvers, last night: Brentwood council’s officers seem to be as clueless as I thought they might be … 


Let’s get moving on, shall we … ?

~~≈≈~~

Yesterday’s Teaser saw Debbi* putting in her answers: along with admitting she’s dropping off the proverbial FB radar, for a while, she also bagged 6 out of 6.

Let’s see how she — and you — do with today’s questions, shall we … ?

Here they are, along with the ‘How To’, License and video … 

Q1) 22nd March, 1945, saw the founding of the Arab League: how many member states are there … ?
Q2) Name one of them.
Q3) 22nd March, 1960, saw the LASER patented.   Laser beams are usually coherent forms of emitted what: microwaves, light or x-rays … ?
Q4) What — in 1974 — was the first day-to-day use of a LASER most of us would have seen … ?
Q5) 22nd March, 1979, saw Ambassador Sir Richard Sykes assassinated outside his home.   Where was he UK ambassador to … ?
Q6) More to the point, who was he assassinated by … ?
Q7) 22nd March, 1996, saw the death of guitarist, Billy Williamson.   Which iconic band rock and roll band was he a member of … ?
Q8) And finally … 22nd March, 1993, saw Intel ship the first of its Pentium chips.   Which brand of home computer has used Intel processors since 2006 … ?
Here’s yesterday’s questions and answers …
Q1) 21st March, 1952, saw Alan Freed present the Moondog Coronation Ball: the world’s first Rock ’n’ Roll concert.   Who played the first song, at that concert … ?
A1) Paul ‘Hucklebuck ’ Williams.
Q2) More to the point, in which Ohio city was the concert held … ?
A2) Cleveland.
Q3) 21st March, 1960, saw 50 protestors killed in a massacre: in which South African township … ?
A3) Sharpeville.
Q4) 21st March, 1999, saw Bertrand Piccard and Brian Jones become the first people to circumnavigate the world … in what … ?
A4) A hot air ballon.
Q5) 21st March, 1871, saw who named as Chancellor of the German Empire … ?
A5) Otto von Bismarck.
Q6) Finally … 21st March, 1800, saw Pius 7th crowned as Pope: with a papal tiara made of what … ?
A6) Papier Mâché.   (There was a war on, seemingly …)
I’ll leave you this quote from Louis L’Amour, the man who — when I was younger — seemed to dominate half the shelves in Brentwood Library
“Start writing, no matter what. The water does not flow until the faucet is turned on.”
Louis L’Amour, March 22, 1908 – June 10, 1988
And, as it’s Mighty Wah! frontman, Pete Wylie’s, birthday, we’ll have this tune … 


Enjoy the day.







*        You’re right, there, Debbi: I can’t wait!   (And I’m curious to see what they do with the new girl … )    Re Facebook: don’t worry, I think I’d be doing the same, in your shoes … !

Tuesday, 3 July 2012

The Continuing Parking Saga … 


You know, you wouldn’t actually believe that’s the same car … !   At least, going by these photos, now would you … ?

Going by the slight differences in colour … 

But, at ANY rate, all four photos show the Salmon pink Ford Ka — license plate EO12 GTY — that was illegally parked around the corner on Saint James Road.

The reason I happened to have my attention drawn too it … ?
 Is the simple fact that the driver of the flatbed lorry awkwardly blocked, just behind it … ?
Wanted directions out of the area.

The driver of the bog van blocked on the OTHER side of this car … ?   Was on the phone:   I’m assuming to his boss, to tell him he couldn’t get the van, through, because some idiot had parked a car there.

Now, I’m just hoping the members of Brentwood Council’s Planning committee are reading this: or that the Brentwood West members of it are, and are willing to forward it on*.

And I’m ALSO aware that a car’s detail’s can be traced from the license plate.

Here’s what the DVLA site says about it.

Now I’m aware that even THAT much may be some form of privacy violations.

But on the other hand … ?

Whoever owns that car’s parked on at least a single yellow line.

And will have problems, if they’re STILL there.
























*        Yes, I know things are busy at the moment, Karen, but I think I’d seriously appreciate it … !

Wednesday, 23 May 2012

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.

Wednesday, 22 June 2011

Boilers And Parking: Again … !

Hmmm …

You know, it’s been a while since I’ve written about my home street, it really it.

To be frank … ?

That’s mostly where I’ve really not been paying attention.

SAYING that … ?

It’s also, in part, sheer laziness on my part …

I’m thinking that the lack of a job really is a BIG de-motivating, like that.

But lets get moving on, shall we … ?

Yes, lets …

What’s triggered this post … ?

Is simply the fact that I — and my neighbours, here on Rollason Way — got a letter from our collective landlords, today, telling us about a couple of things.

»»·««

I suppose I better do a quick bit of summing up, first, though, hadn’t I … ?

Yes, I should …

Just so you know, I live on Rollason Way, one of Brentwood’s newer streets.

Most of the flats on Rollason Way are what’s termed Social Housing. Usually run by a local council, most of the flats, here, are run by the not-for-profit social landlord, South Anglia. But there’s also a few part-owned/part-rented properties in the mix, as well.

I was one of the first people to move into the rented flats.

One of the problems, over the years I’ve been here … ?

Is the amount of parking.

Or should I say, lack of parking.

Because, what with one thing and another, the miniature carparks associated with each of the small blocks of flats has ¾s of a parking space for each flat.

Over the years, that’s lead to a lot of on-street parking.

AND the introduction of Resident’s parking permits, for each flat: which are only valid for the carparks, I should add.

Actually, those have helped.

They and the associated clamping scheme, at least, reduced the amounts of commuters cars in the carparks.

But more cars on the actual street itself.

I personally believe a lot of those are ones owned by commuters, although I know a few are owned by my immediate neighbours: mostly ones who find it easier to park nearer their front doors, than in the actual carparks.

At any rate, all this is due to change.

You see, strictly speaking, Rollason Way is not a public road.

And therefore not subject to police or traffic warden enforcement of parking violations.

No.

It — and Wharf Road*, just around the corner form it — are still technically owned and administered by Crest Nicholson, the builders of the estate.

And therefore, any traffic control is their responsibility.

Which is why we’ve been sent a letter from South Anglia, our landlords.

Basically … ?

They’ve informed us that Crest Nicholson — from the 27th June of this year — to start implementing a clamping scheme for both Wharf Road and Rollason Way.

And to inform us that, firstly, that the permits will be exchanged for new ones, on the 27th August: a month after the scheme goes into action.

»»·««

The other bit of news in the letter … ?

Oh … Boy …

Is that, going by the minutes of the recent residents meeting … ?

Is the amount of complaints about the boilers

Deary, deary me … !

Now, I don’t know if you remember me writing about this, but everyone I’ve talked to has had to have their flat’s boiler looked at.

A lot of my neighbours are concerned about the amount of noise the wretched things make.

I’m not surprised, somehow.

Actually, forget about somehow … !

I’m just flat out not surprised.

I think I’m going to be having a word or two.

On TOP of the ones I’ve already written … !
















* The Wharf Road section of this part of town is part of the same development. However, where Rollason Way is the socially housed part of the development, Wharf Road is private: in other words, all of the flats and houses, there, are privately owned.

Monday, 11 April 2011

The Rollason Way and Saint James Road Parking Saga … !

Ahhhh …

Well, THAT looks like it was nothing to worry about.

Remember that I mentioned I couldn’t access my Facebook account, earlier … ?

The FUNNY thing is … ?

Literally, the next page I went to after posted that little whinge … ?

Was Facebook.

Which went and let me in perfectly …

I’ve got to ask, if FB’s thought about doing site maintenance when people are tucked up in bed … ?

HONESTLY* … !

»»•««

At ANY rate … ?

One thing I knew I meant to flag up for my neighbours, today, was this car, was this parked car: parked, I should add, on Saint James Road, near its junction with Rollason Way.

Now, I’m not sure, but I believe it’s a car owned by one of the people living in the flats in Saint James Road.

I’m fairly sure I’ve seen it there a few times before.

But I’m ALSO certain I’ve not seen it with a huge dent in it, up until today.

Obviously, I’m wondering what on earth happened …

And wondering what on earth the local police are doing about it …

If I here anything about it … ?

I’ll let you know …

But I think it only goes to show a point, I’ve always maintained about my part of town: that the congested parking is bad enough to give normal sized cars problems, let along anything else.





















* Oh, bit of a computer geek’s lightbulb joke for you: how many coders does it take to change a lightbulb … ? None. It’s a hardware problem …

Monday, 21 March 2011

The Rollason Way Saga … DOESN’T just include the parking …

You know, I’m sorry to have to say this …

But I’m still thinking Councillor Joan Holmes may have to step down.

I really do.

You see, after sending her the email, the other day, about the now extended plans for the development on Saint James Road … ?

I got a reply.

One I’m still not happy about.

As you may know, I sent her this mail, after hearing she’s voted in favour of the extension to the planning application on Saint James Road.

To put not to fine a point on it … ?

I asked her to stand down.

But I thought I’d tell you about the reply I got.

Here …

Dear Mr Downie,
In response to your email I would reply as follows:-
I did speak on the subject, of course I did. I asked a number of residents whom were interested in this application previously what their thoughts were for me to pass on. I was advised by them that they would rather see an office block than more flats in the area. They are intelligent people and realize that we are in an economic meltdown at this time and there are lots of available office space in Brentwood at the moment. They realised this block would probably in the short term not get let so to delay the build for a while and continue to enjoy the green space for as long as possible was the preferred option. This is what I told the panel. NOT MY VIEWS BUT THOSE OF RESIDENTS. You may not be aware but I represent nearly 3,000 homes in Brentwood West and I have always represented THEIR views NOT my own.
I think you also need to get your facts straight before making judgments. I don’t know where you got your information from but I did not vote on this subject. I am not on the planning committee so cannot do so. The panel made their decision and went along with the officer recommendation although I did stipulate that if this building was delayed then the roadways and paths must be completed as soon as possible and not wait to which the panel and officers agreed. If you had let me know your views I would have presented those also but as you did not I can only go on the information I have from my residents. You say in your email I’m informed that you spoke on the subject, and said that residents in the area are broadly in favour of the development going ahead. This is also untrue as I said they were in favour of it being delayed as there is always the slightest chance that it will never be built at all. The build will go ahead anyway as it has planning permission and the amendment to the application was to delay it further until market conditions improved.
I understand Cllr Baker has been in touch with what we have achieved as an administration and I cannot list everything I have done over the last ten years but would say I am not afraid to stand up against my own party for the good of the people and have done so on a number of occasions, most recently to save our Fire Station which incidentally our two County Councillors for the town have so far not done.
I was also the first person in the country to call in a license for review, namely the Sugar Hut and imposed 58 conditions on them before they could reopen and continue to monitor them with the police. I have visited and spoken with every single business in Brentwood and Shenfield and will do the same in Ingatestone in a few weeks time. I have also helped residents in reducing council tax, getting rehomed, liasing with social services and housing associations to get conditions improved as well as helping out with the elderly and the youth projects. I have tackled anti social behaviour in the area by accompanying the police around the town at night and have also been out with the Interceptors and their ANPR. I also campaigned and got the 20mph here and the bus running through Clements Park so that people can get to the Doctors Surgery.
I won’t bore you with anything further but I would say you do not know me nor the things I have achieved in my life and for so many residents in Brentwood not just my own ward and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
Kind regards
Joan Holmes
Now, I can’t speak too much about how many residents Councillor Holmes consulted.

However!

I do know that, at the planning committee meeting where I spoke against the flats being built, I managed to stress the fact that some of my neighbours had quietly told me they felt emergency-vehicle access, here on Rollason Way, was iffy to say the least.

As I told the Councillor in my reply …
Councillor Holmes, I’ve got to confess, I still feel surprised.

You’ve said — in this email — that you’ve spoken to those who “whom were interested in this application previously what their thoughts were for me to pass on”.

And, given that I was the only resident to speak out against the flats at the relevant planning meeting, and that you’ve had me email address for some time … ?

I am surprised, and offended that you did not send me a courtesy email — if you were not prepared to knock on my door, in person — to ask for my thoughts on the subject.

As you can tell … ?

I’m against: I know the plans include a large parking area, but — however many spaces these may include — I’m also still convinced that there will be overspill onto the already congested Saint James Road area.

As you may be able to tell from the photo I took, this morning … ?

That overspill — however many jobs it may bring to the area — will not be a good thing for the residents of Wharf Road, Saint James Road, or Rollason Way.

And given that the office block opposite the proposed new block has only two parking spaces … ?

Is inevitable.

As you know … ?

As you know, my main concern has been with fire engines being able to get to our part of the area. As things stand, I still feel they won’t: and am aware of at least ONE other person who feels as I do.

I still feel that way, whatever is built of that patch of ground, will not be good for your constituents.

And will ask once again, Councillor.

You have misrepresented at least one of your constituents: When will you be stepping down as a result of this?
Now, I should maybe stress here, that I’ve picked up a few things.

For starters, I know that a woman called Georgina agrees with me, and wasn’t afraid to say so.

Thanking you, Georgina!

Now, I’m told that that any fire tenders could gain access to the furthest end of Rollason Way through one of three routes.

One would, of course, be through Saint James Road.

Now, that’s congested enough, I think. And I’m very aware that the already finished block of offices — at One, Saint James Road — only seem to have two parking spaces attached to them. The rest — that the ramps lead to, in the second set of photos — are for customers of the Premier Inn in what used to be Alan Sugar’s HQ.

Another of them would be through the patch of green at the end of Wharf Road: something I personally feel would be doable. But extremely difficult, in an emergency: after all, a fire engine would have to get through Saint James Road, first, or through the even more congested Chase Road.

I’m also told that a fire engine could — potentially — come to that end of Rollason Way, through Huberts Road: the bug blue gate, in that bottom picture.

Which sounds more doable.

But given it’s still a construction site … ?

Well …

I’ve got to ask one thing.

Just one.

Is what would happen if a fire took place, right now, at the other end of Rollason Way.

Well … ?

Would what happen … ?

I don’t know.

I do know all it would take to start a fire is something simple.

Like an overheating chip pan to be dropped …