Nik Nak’s Daily Teaser — 10-7-2017

Hmmm … 

You may or may not know it, but I’ve lived on my street for about a decade, now.

And, in all that time?   I’ve strongly believed that the layout and parking in the area make emergency vehicle access to the area.

I’ve also opposed further development in the area: believing this, too, will contribute to access problems.

For a long time, now?   The council’s given approval for further development in Saint James Road: just around the corner from my flat, here in Rollason way.   Again, that’s something I’ve opposed.

The development, and the land it’s on?   Was owned by Taylor Wimpey.

Who’ve done the ground work on the site, but no actual building work.

I think things will be changing.

As, when I went past, last night?

There was a (pictured) sign up: telling us the site was being sold off by an agency called Savills.

Speaking personally?

I’m not sure how I feel about that.

The fact we’ve actually had no building work done for the past few months was a small mercy: it meant no building work would block emergency vehicle access to the area.

The fact it’s now for sale?

I’m not sure about the implications of that.

I’m annoyed that the owners of the land hadn’t built there.   Granted I wanted nothing done there, believing it to be harmful to the area, but, once work had started?   Believe it should have been finished, and finished quickly.

The plot being sold?

Means more years of faffing about.

~≈ß≈~

Nik Nak's Friday Question Set -- 14-10-2016

14th October, 

Can I make a confession, here?

I’m actually writing this post at my local library.

Mostly?

Well, mostly because I wanted to get out of the house.

You know, get some fresh air, possibly some exercise as well.

To get to Warley Hill, and to Brentwood High Street, where the library is, I have to go down Saint James Round: the small Street that connects mine road — Rollason Way — to Warley Hill.

Saint James Road is something of a battleground.

As I and others have long since campaigned against any extra building on the small patch of ground left.

On a personal level?

I believe such building work would seriously impede emergency vehicle access to my road.

I've gone past the area, today.

And there’s a digger clearing the ground in that patch.

I think, despite the protests of residents?

Brentwood Council’s approved plans for that last remaining green space.

And residents will be the worse for it.

~≈Â≈~

About that Planning Meeting …

Well, I think I can say that, if Nina — she of @NinaMadeAPretty fame — saw this post, she’d be pleased, I think: she always claimed I had a pleasant speaking voice.

It’s just a shame that Brentwood Council’s sound kit isn’t good …

»»•««

Which sounds a touch pretentious, now I come to say it …

»»•««

At any rate … ?

You’ve probably realised that, on Tuesday night, I was at Brentwood Council’s planning Committee meeting: to object to Taylor Wimpey’s plans for the area.

Oh, boy, there’s quite a bit — as Debbi and Karen could no doubt tell you — that I could be saying, here.

I’ll keep it to stuff that’s printable, shall I … ?

Or that won’t get me prosecuted … !

At ANY rate … ?

There’s a whole pile of stuff about that meeting available.

Not least — and, I suspect only for a short time — is the webcast of the meeting itself.

If you’re wanting to watch that, I should add that you can find it here.

It IS two hours worth, I should add.

My bit of speech is at the end.

And I believe I sound rather nervous, although I’m told I put in a good performance.

But there’s a whole pile of points I think I could have added.

If I’d had time.

»»•««

But that doesn’t mean I can’t mention them here, of course, now I’ve had the time to calm down.

For starters, and purely on an emotional point, I’ve been informed — by one or two people — that the legalities of the planning permissions that have been already granted, means that something has to be point there.

I’m sure that’s the case.

I ALSO believe that — should a good enough legal mind be found* — that can be argued.

Even if it can’t be … ?

There’s a small part of me that — quite frankly — is yelling “Legalities be buggered”.

This is frankly not about legalities: it’s about people, and the necessities of their lives, rather than the legalities.

»»·««

Another point: and one that I managed to mention on the night … ?

Was the second picture you see posted here.

Which is actually a copy of the letter that Taylor Wimpey’s wonk sent to Brentwood Council: basically threatening to pull out of town, should the development not go ahead.

As you can possibly tell, I got honest, and send what I felt about that.

The laughable bit is that the man from Taylor Wimpey made a point of saying the parking was/is fine. After I’d pointed out in my three minutes that the report the Planning Committee had copies of said “the amount of parking for the residential element and layout of the proposed vehicle parking would not fully comply with current standards”.

That’s in Brentwood Council’s Planning Committee’s own report that was included in the Agenda for the eveningº.

»»·««

Phew …

Now there’s POSSIBLY a lot more I could add, there.

However … ?

I think that — for the moment — I’ll leave things there.

But before I go, can I ask you one thing … ?

Former councillor — and planning committee member — Karen Chilvers has put together a petition against these buildings.

Feel free to sign it!

* One who believes this to be a good cause that should be performed pro bono. Rather than by the hour …

º One good point that Laura, one of my fellow objectors made, was that the listed number of assigned parking spaces for the Creche included two spaces. As she pointed out in her objection letter to the council, this was not enough for the seven members of staff a creche of that size demanded.