There Goes The Neighbourhood …

Did I ever tell you I live in Brentwood … ?   In Essex … ?

I live in Brentwood: in Essex.

So you know.

And, again, so you know, I live on a street called Rollason Way: named after local girl, and sports journalist, Helen Rollason.

The street’s some seven or eight years old, now: and a mix of socially housed tenants, like me, part-buy residents, and private residents.

For many years … ?

For many years, there’s been a patch of ground in Saint James Road that’s not been built on.

Effectively?   Waste ground.

I’ve always taken the view that it should maybe used as extra parking space for locals: there’s really not enough, around here.

OR be used as a small park.

Something like that.

I’ve ALSO felt that building more flats — or offices, shops, what-have-you — shouldn’t be built there.

More shops would add to any congestion in the area.

Offices, likewise.

As would more flats: which would also add to any parking problems.

I went by the patch of found, this afternoon.

To find these signs up.

Hmmm …

~≈∑≈~

The Planning Agenda is Here …

Well … 

It’s official!

Brentwood Council’s planning committee has now decided to put the the previously deferred application from Taylor Wimpey — just by Brunel House, around the corner from me, on Saint James Road — BACK on to the agenda.

And I can’t help but notice a few things.

Once again, the plans have been recommended — by the planning office — for approval.

There’s all sorts of other things, as well.

One positive note — and something I know Councillor Chilvers worked on, prior to her recent re-election — was the fact that the proposal now includes a section from Essex Fire Service — on p.39 of the agenda — saying that  ‘with such a heavily populated area, it is essential that emergency vehicles are not inhibited in any way in reaching the scene of an incident.   The current proposals for residential flats, shops and offices can only lead to a further escalation of the problems currently being experienced’.

Which is all good: and something I’ve only been saying for the past two years or so.

However … ?

On p.46 of the agenda it says — in the Highways and Parking section — the agenda says … ‘Whilst there have been access problems experienced by emergency vehicles, the current proposal

complies with the adopted parking standards and planning permission for an office building on the site, which would create greater travel demand at peak times, already exists (reference 05/00989/FUL).’

Which — to me, anyway — sounds like whoever’s produced this report knows about the risk.

And doesn’t care, as it’s already been started on!

Which is no argument, from where I’m sitting.

After all, why add fuel to the proverbial fire?

However … ?

A little further down the page, it says ‘ in response to the Fire Services' concerns, the Highways Officer recommends that the Traffic Regulation Order relating to the opposite side of St James Road could be amended to extend the existing double yellow lines as far as an existing lay-by in response to the Fire Services' concerns, the Highways Officer recommends that the Traffic Regulation Order relating to the opposite side of St James Road could be amended to extend the existing double yellow lines as far as an existing lay-by’.

Personally … ?

Personally, I happen to think that that’s going to be about as effective as a chocolate teapot, given how things stand now.

‹‹±››

There’s more … !

Oh, isn’t there just … !

On p.50, the agenda says ‘With respect to the provision of private amenity space, the occupiers of the proposed flats would either access to a private balcony/patio measuring at least 5sq.m. or would have access to a communal area of amenity space which would provide at least 23sq.m. per flat for the privately owned flats and more than 25sq.m. per flat for the affordable units.’

Hmmm … 

As you know, I’m in Rollason Way, just around the corner from the planned flats.

And I’ve got to admit, I’m one of the unlucky socially housed people on the ground floor of block of flats.   Who has a flat without a balcony.

Which is DAMN odd, actually: as the rest of my block has balconies.   That’s something replicated along this end of the street, until you get to Faldo Court.

And towards the end of page 50 … ?   It says ‘It is considered that the applicant’s offer to provide a contribution towards the maintenance and provision of local public open space (including play space) results in the proposed development complying with Local Plan Policy CP4, subject to an agreement being reached as to the amount of the contribution and where it should be invested.’.

I know it sounds odd … ?

But RIGHT now, I’m thinking that Taylor Wimpey will eventually have to build that public space quite a distance away from where it’s needed.

Along Saint James Road.

‹‹±››

Actually … ?

Talking of the parking, the Highways and Parking section on p. 48 says that there should be a minimum of 44 residential parking spaces.

But that the proposal includes 35 residential spaces.

Hmmm … 

Exactly how much exasperated swearing do you want … ?

‹‹±››

Phew … !

Now … 

Right now I think I’m going to leave this post right here.

However … ?

I will encourage you — if you one of my neighbours, and one who objects — I’d encourage you to head along to that planning meeting, next week.

If you can’t … ?   Please feel free to sign this petition, to object.

If you can … ?

I’ll see you there … 

The Plans For the Saint James Road Development …

Hmmmm …

Right … !

OK …

Now, you’ve possibly already realised that I’ve been campaigning against — or at least writing about — the planned offices/flats/mixed used development in Saint James Road for quite some time.

And heard, late last night, that the proposed development — planned and sponsored by Taylor Wimpey — is to go before Brentwood Council’s planning committee, next Tuesday.

A TOUCH short on time, I’m thinking, and certainly something that caught me by surprise.

And left me fuming, when I realised that it had been recommended for approval.

Fuming enough to head into town, this morning, to Brentwood Council, to ask what was going on.

The staff there weren’t able to tell me much: although they DID tell me that — apparently — letters had gone out to various residents, so those who wish to object or approve in person could do so.

I’ve already volunteered to speak out against this.

As you mite have guessed.

Here’s hoping that meeting goes well.

»»·««

There’s something else, as well.

I’ve also managed to talk to the conservative, Councillor Lloyd, who’s shop is around the corner from me.

And who ALSO happens to be on the planning committee.

According to him, he can’t actually talk about which way’s he’s planning to vote on the subject: something I know I’ve always thought of as a daft rule, I should add.

He also told me that — due to the legalities of the original planning applications, and approvals — SOMETHING had to be put on the site.

Something that I frankly doubt.

With all due respect to Councillor Lloyd, if that WAS the case, why on EARTH are any sort of plans for that last patch of unused ground coming before the planning committee: for the THIRD time* … ?

At ANY rate … ?

Phew … !

At ANY rate, after all that, I think I’m going to keep my fingers crossed for next Tuesday.

After all, stage fright isn’t pleasant …

* Complete with the planned crèche. The planned crèche. I HONESTLY don’t know if there’s any demand for a crèche, I really don’t. But if you look on page 9 of the planning document, it says “We assume there is demand for a crèche facility.” Assume … ? They’ve not actually ASKED … ? Every so often, Great Britain has a National Censusº. Has anyone at Brentwood Council’s planning office gone out and either looked at that, or just plain asked people … ?

º There’s also the issue of parking, as well. Most of my neighbours still complain about it. In addition, page six of the AMDoc that outlines the various consultation processes that have been gone through, under Section 3 — Consultation Responses says “Although the amount of parking for the residential element and layout of the proposed vehicle parking would not fully comply with current standards, the Highway Authority would not wish to raise an objection to the above application, given the submitted Transport Statement, the previous approval, the location with good access to frequent and extensive public transport and local facilities, policy in PPG 13 and the Brentwood Borough Council adopted parking standards.” Hmmm … To be frank, I think most of my neighbours don’t really use public transport. They’ve got cars …

Brunel House: Once More … !

I have to confess, when I need to concentrate, there’s times when the TV goes off, and the stereo — so to speak — gets switched on.

Although these days, ‘the stereo’ tends to either be the 1990s era Mac Performa at the other end of my front room.

Or the copy of iTunes 10•5•2 I have on Bruce, my Mac Mini.

Right at the moment?

Right a the moment I have iTunes on, and am playing Amon Tobin’s Foley Room.

Riveting stuff, so you know: if you can imagine Delia Derbyshire reborn as a mad Brazilian free-jazz/Music-Concret fan, you kind of get the idea …

At any rate … ?

As fun as I’m finding Foley Room, that’s NOT what I was going to tell you about.

»»•««

No, I was going to tell you about the recent planning application that’s gone into Brentwood Council, for the patch of undeveloped ground in Saint James Road.

Now, that patch of land has been famously argued about, for some time: in fact, back in 2010, I actually was the token objector when the flats back then, went before Brentwood Council’s planning Committee.

But, as you may know — if you’ve been following me for a while — plans have been resubmitted to the Council, for a mixed development of flats, offices and shops, as listed here. (Ref: 11/01195/FUL, so you know.)

Like I’ve said, I’ve already objected: firstly, on the grounds that this is a perfect place to put a small public park, or at least a bit of green space.

And secondly, on the ground the proposed developments — this, and the previous ones — would generate enough overflow parked cars so as to seriously impede emergency vehicle access to the area.

However, for those of us in the area … ?

Those of us in the area can formally object to the plans.

By going to the link on Brentwood Council’s site, here, and filling in the form.

Just as a final thought … ?

Former Councillor Chilvers was instrumental in helping residents in her (former) patch getting the plans rejected back in 2010.

The photo she has in her blog post about the recent application … ?

Seem to have vanished.

Now, I don’t know if that’s a normal part of procedures such as this. But can’t help feeling that’s a BIT whiffy …

Planning … AGAIN … !

Oh, BOY … !

THAT’S what the proposed building’s going to look like … ?

I hope not, actually.

As you probably do — or don’t, maybe — know, my street’s fairly new: to the point where the last block of flat’s is going up at the other end of it, as I write.

But I’ve also objected to building work at the other end of Saint James Road, next to the small block of flats, called Brunel House.

On the basis that I’ve always felt that more development — AND the associated parking — will seriously delay any emergency vehicle access to our street.

I still do.

So, as you can imagine, finding out that the developers that owned that patch of land still wanted to build the proposed multi-use block pictured above … ?

Had me writing in to the local council’s planning officer, as you can imagine.

Here’s what I wrote.

Dear Sir,

I’m writing to object to the proposed development next to Brunel House, in Brentwood: your ref 11/01195/FUL.

Some time ago, I — as many residents of the area — objected to some proposed flats on the same ground.

I felt — as I said at the relevant meeting of the planning committee — that the parking associated with the flats would be hazardous to the area, as it would further impede emergency vehicle access to the Saint James Road/Rollason Way/Wharf Road area..

I still believe this to be the case.

I also feel that this proposed development adds more retail and office space to an area that has — just around the corner — at least 4 unused retail lots, AND quite a lot of untenanted office space.

This is in addition to 1, Saint James Road, the three-storey office block, directly opposite the site. A three storey office block that is still untenanted, ever since it was built.

««•»»

As I said at the start of this email: I’ve objected to further development to the site in the past.

And am still objecting.

Yours

Annoyed … ?

Gosh, I hope it sounded like it!

But for those of my neighbours reading this … ?

We have until the 26th January, 2012 to object to these plans. Any emails have to be sent toplanning@brentwood.gov.uk, with mail going to:

Planning Officer,

Planning Services,

Town Hall,

Ingrave Road,

Brentwood,

Essex.

CM15 8AY

Feel free to copy and paste, folks.

Here’s hoping Brentwood Council pay attention!

Rollason Way: The Developer’s Continue … !

Hmm …

Well THAT’s a thing … !

Just when I’d thought my street — Rollason Way — had been finished … ?

Something new kicks off!

Or old, I should say.

You see, the street I live on has been under construction for some — oooooh — four years or so.

In fact I, and most of the neighbours in my block of flats were some of the first to move in to the street.

We kind of got used — for the first eighteen months or so — to the amount of construction traffic.

But it was something of a relief when a through-road was built at the Hubert Road end of Rollason Way, to allow that traffic through, without actually disturbing people.

Theoretically.

Today, though … ?

Well, today, a couple of bits of construction traffic went through from the Saint James Road end of Rollason Way.

A great big flatbed truck, with a consignment of bricks and concrete blocks.

Now, as far as I know… ?

There’s a bylaw or regulation against that.

So I reported it to Brentwood Council’s Planning Department.

Whether they’ll do anything, I don’t know, but there’s hoping they get back to me.