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.

An Open Letter to Brentwood Councillors

You know, I’ve written for years now, against the planned building work in Saint James Road.

Just next to Brunel house, so you know.

Mostly where I’ve felt it’s extremely dangerous to local residents: in that it prevents — or seriously impedes, I should say — emergency vehicle access to the area.

With that in mind … ?

With that in mind, I sent an open email to every Brentwood councillor whose email address I could find.

Whether it’ll help, or not, I don’t know, but I thought I should repeat it, here, today.

Here‘s what I said.

Dear Councillor, 

As I’m sure you’re aware, tomorrow night sees a Planning committee meeting: and on the agenda for that meeting is the vote to approve or reject the plans for a mixed development, next to Brunel House, in Saint James Road, in the Brentwood West ward.

As you may or may not know, it’s a development that I and many other residents have objected to, for many years.

I’m writing to you to urge you — if you’re on that planning committee* — to vote to reject Taylor Wimpey’s plans for the area.

As you may know, I’ve objected — personally — to the plans in person, and hope to be there, tomorrow.

I still object.

Mostly on the basis that I — like others — have been VERY aware of the CURRENT difficulties emergency vehicles have in gaining access to Saint James Road and Rollason Way: something I know is highlight by Essex Fire Service in the proposal.

And I still believe that this is a major issue, as highlighted by recently reported events in the Brentwood Gazette.

I ALSO firmly believe — still — that the situation will be made far worse, should the proposals be voted through: and believe the proposed double yellow lines will only shift parks cars in Saint James Road to Rollason Way, Wharf Road, Chase Road and Kings Chase.

The access problems would have shifted, not been improved.

In closing … ?

In closing I would urge councillors on the committee to vote against this proposals.

And those not on it to urge their colleagues to vote against it.

Frankly, doing so will prevent lives being taken.

Yours,

* I know some councillors will not be on the committee: I would urge you — if you’re not — to have your colleagues who ARE, to read this letter.

Here’s hoping that has some sort of effect.

And doesn’t turn out to be a stitch-up.

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 … 

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.

The Saint James Road Planning Application: DEFERRED

Oh, but my GODS, I’m annoyed, at the moment, I really am … !

If you’ve been following me for a while, you’re probably VERY aware that I’ve been quietly objecting to Taylor Wimpey’s plans to build one last block on a patch of unused ground around the corner from where I live.

The ground concerned is around the corner from my place, in Saint James Road.

Tonight … ?

Tonight saw the Brentwood Council planning committee meeting that was supposed to decide whether to approve or reject Taylor Wimpey’s latest plans: to build a mixed use development: with a floor of shops, two floors of offices, and two floors of flats.

I — obviously — spoke against.

And I wish I could find the relevant part of Brentwood Council’s website, I really do.

Over the past few years, they’ve made a habit of webcasting these things.

At any rate … ?

My turn to speak out came at about 9 o’clock, tonight.

And I have to admit to a certain amount of nerves: and a certain amount of anger, as well. The way the minutes had been laid out, it looked — looked — as if this case would be fairly near the start of the whole proceedings.

It wasn’t.

I got to the planning committee meeting at 6•54: six minutes before the meeting was dues to start.

Got into the chamber about two minutes later.

And finally, actually spoke* at 9 o’clock.

I think I managed to make my point well enough: although this is where I’m annoyed I can’t find the webcast of the thing: the chair told me to wind things down, a minute ahead of time.

That’s one thing that got me good and fuming.

Another thing … ?

Was the fact that — for the first time that I know of, in all these applications — representatives from Taylor Wimpey deigned to show up.

And put in an equally good speech.

About how these plans would both be in character with the area.

And provide jobs.

Which I think is when I started seriously and quietly fuming.

I mean, the guy looked like he’d never been on benefits, in his entire life, to be frank.

But then, after all that, is when the mess started, frankly.

Because that’s when, frankly, the committee voted.

To defer any decision on the matter.

Defer … ?

I know I got talking to Clair and Laura — who are pictured, standing next to Karen Chilvers, in the fourth and fifth photos — whilst I was at the meeting: they were also there to object. (Laura even pointed out to me, before I went on, that the proposed shops had no parking. Stroke of bloody genius, that … !)

And they were both ALSO good and bloody annoyed about both the wait, and the fact that no decision was made there and then.

After two hours of — basically — sitting and waiting.

I …

Hmmm …

Hang on, let me go get a cuppa …

»»•««

Ooh, that’s better … !

Now …

After GOT to admit, after two hours of tension, boredom, anger … ?

I will say that I’ve seen Brentwood Council’s Planning committee behave badly, tonight.

First, by arranging the agenda for the meeting to give a misleading impression that this case would be dealt with, extremely early on.

And SECONDLY, by deferring it, when they did get to deal with it.

What gets me, there, is the reasons the chairman gave included the shops, the creche, the parking …

But had NO mention of the emergency vehicular access that both Claire and Laura agreed with me was an issue.

* The last photo, I should add, is the notes I made of what I wanted to say at the meeting.

Stage Fright.

Well …

Just in case you’re wondering, that’s the main doors for the offices at Brentwood Town Hall.

Just so you know … ?

The Planning Committee meeting — about the proposed building around the corner from me, in Saint James Road — is going ahead, tomorrow night, at 7pm.

And I’ve just confirmed that your’s truly — me, in other words — is the resident who’s objecting to the plans.

Wish me luck.

After all, to an ageing fan of the original The Prisoner, those doors … are slightly alarming … !

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: We’ve OFFICIALLY been sold down the river … !

You know, I realise this particular post is going to look rather crowded.

I realise that.

But I’m ALSO aware of some of it’s implications.

That — literally — residents in my street have been sent down the river.

As you probably realise, I’ve been both following — and objecting to — plans to build any more offices and flats in the immediate area that I live in.

Including just around the corner, in Saint James Road.

Taylor Wimpey, in case you hadn’t realised it, have proposed plans in place, to build a mixed use development next to Brunel House.

Something I’ve been writing about for some time: and objecting to it for almost as long as I’ve been here.

It‘s the emergency vehicle access. frankly: I’ve felt it’s inadequate for YEARS, now.

‹‹•››

At ANY rate …

Taylor Wimpey has had amended plans lodged at Brentwood Council for some time.

To turn the patch of waste ground I’m talking about in the aforementioned mixed development.

I’ve objected vocally on Brentwood Council’s website: understandably.

And still object, now.

Even more so, now I’ve had the proposed outline of the planned committee meeting about it passed to me.

It’s been marked up for approval … !

I’m …

Well, tempted to swear, after all the work that’s been put in.

But I’m ALSO fuming.

After all, the emergency vehicle situation impacts DIRECTLY on me.

And what’s more … ?

I’m ALSO concerned that — after Taylor Wimpey’s threat to leave town — the Planning committee will just plain cave in to the corporate big boy.

»»·««

Hmmm …

Can I be blunt … ?

Blue collar writer, fellow blogger, and Old Peculiar regular, Debbi Mack made a very good point in one of her posts, the other day: about not posting when angry.

I’m going to gently leave this post here.

I am LITERALLY too angry to think.

Let along write coherently … !