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 …