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 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 William Hunter Way Development: or CINEMA … !

I have to admit, I have something of an opinion.

Several of them, actually.

I think a penny saved is a penny earned: that recycling’s a good thing to do: that every one has good and bad in them.

Oh, and that Macs  are superior to PCs.

Something most of my friends are possibly trued of hearing me pontificate about.

Something else I believe … ?

Is that the closure of my home town’s two screen cinema, many years ago, was a bad thing.

Certainly for me: at the time, it was a cheap night out for someone who’d been in and out of part time work, so having to travel to see a film added an extra cost.

An extra cost I, for one, resented.

Then and now.

So the fact that Brentwood Borough Council approved a development for a cinema, an associated carpark and set of retail units, was something I welcomed.

Unfortunately … ?

Unfortunately, that development has now been cancelled.

And going by the reports in the Brentwood Gazette, cancelled because the Council and developers couldn’t agree on the rent: and whether it should be linked to the Retail Prices Index.

And I must admit to a certain amount of sadness about the whole thing.

~≈†≈~

You know, maybe sadness is the wrong word, here.

Maybe I should focus, instead, on anger.

At both the Council: and the developers, Stocklands.

From what I can recall from the Gazette reports at the time, Stocklands were seriously hit by the recession: and put the William Hunter Way development on hold, while assorted things were done at the company’s HQ in Australia.   And while the UK branch renegotiated the rent deal.

I also have to admit, I’m also angry at Brentwood Council.

Both the Conservative administration, who seem to have badly botched the deal in the first place: not least by letting the whole thing drag on for some eight to nine years longer than it needed to be.

My feelings, there, are that this could have been concluded a lot sooner than it has been.   With Brentwood having a cinema built by Stocklands: OR by someone else, if they felt they couldn’t afford to.

I feel the Tories have badly let us down.

I’m ALSO annoyed at local Liberal Democrats: something I know will sadden Councillor Chilvers, who, to her credit, has stood by her belief that the plans — as they stood — weren’t a good thing for town.

I feel that the Lib-dem members on the council have not made their case strongly enough: OR publicly enough.

They may well have had alternatives to the Stocklands deal: but none they ever made public, as far as I could see, and that — in my opinion — they should have done.

I personally believe that had these plans gone ahead, they would have been a net benefit to the town.

~≈†≈~

Personally … ?

Personally, I’m very aware that talk started in 2005, about a potential new cinema in Brentwood.   Something I have both welcomed, dreamed of and written about for a long time.

I seriously believed, back in 2005, that Brentwood could benefit from a multi-screen cinema*: and the associated retail and hospitality jobs.

I still do.

The fact they have been cancelled … ?

Is no loss to Stocklands.

Or to some at Brentwood Council.

But to us: the people of Brentwood, who would have benefitted from this.

*        The little I understand of the economics of the situation — something I’ve discussed with friends more familiar with the industry than I — confirms my personal belief that a venue with four to six screens — at the minimum — is the minimum affordable option that most chains would consider.

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.

More stuff about the Cinema!!!

Phew!

The amount of digging I’ve just done!

And not to get the cinema built, either.   Except metaphorically, either!!!!

But, at any rate, I’ve just spent a — debatedly — fruitful 20 minutes or so, emailing Kerry Hartnett, the Local Government Ombudsman team member who, seemingly, deals with our area, to find out as much as possible about the possible complaint that the various anti’s may have put in.

Please notice I say MAY have put in.

Because they can’t actually say whether they have or not, because of the various Data protection laws.

Hmmm …

I don’t quite know how I feel about that.

I do know it’s frustrating not to know for certain, simply if one’s been received, or not.

And I also know that, based on the information I’ve received from both Kerry Hartnett at the Local Governed Office, and from the Planning Office at Brentwood Coucil, that we should send a letter of support to Steven Boyle — the Complaints Officer at Brentwood Council — to help offset any complaints that the Swan Paddock Residents Association or the Save Brentwood Action Group choose to make to the Ombudsman Office.

Here’s his email adress; steve.boyle@brentwood.gov.uk

And here’s the email I sent; 

“Dear Mr Boyle, I’m writing to show my support for Brentwood Council’s approval for the recently approved William Hunter Way development – BRW/729/2008 — as I feel the associated shops and cinema will bring both much needed jobs and entertainment to this town.

As a jobseeker, I look forward to appying for a job, there, and also hope it will bring many years entertainment to the area; something Brentwood has been in sore need of.

I also feel I should point out that the Swan Paddock Residents Association, and Save Brentwood Action Group do not represent all the residents of this town, nor necessarily have the towns best long term interests at heart.

Please feel free to look over the various posts I have made about it, on http://niknaksoldpeculiarblog.blogspot.com/search/label/cinema”

Obviously, if this is something you’d want to do yourself, I’d seriously urge you get going with the cutting and pasting!!

Actually, I’d seriously urge you do it, now; I don’t know whether a complaint has been made, although I suspect it may have done.

Every bit helps …

Brentwood’s Cinema.

7th March, 2009

Just thought I’d put in a quick post.

I’ll give the local Liberal Democrats a brief nod for being quick to reply.

I sent a quick email last week: to some of the councillors quoted in a recent Gazette article; and got an automated out of office reply from Councillor Lewis.   Along with a reply from Councillor Kendall.

Here’s the email I sent.

Hello.

    It’s come to my attention that you have been quoted in this week’s Brentwood Gazette, after the recent Council meeting about the development about the proposed cinema.

    I’m personally in favour of the development, seeing it as a chance to try and find both entertainment and a job in the area.

    I’ve posted to my blog about this matter and wondered if you would like to comment?

Yours,

Paul Downie.

Councillor Kendall’s reply:

Dear Paul

Thank you for your e-mail.

    I have always been keen for a Cinema to return to Brentwood and support the principle of a mixed development on the William Hunter Way site.

    However I could not vote for the recent planning application because in my view the sheer size and scale of what was proposed was wrong for Brentwood. I believe that there should have been two or three development options for councillors and residents to consider that were of a size and scale more suited to the site and the town centre environment as a whole.

    I also believe there should have been a full Borough wide public consultation on the plans and an Environmental Assessment Study completed but both these requests were rejected by the administration.

    Any development on the site would have bought much needed jobs to the town but I think we could have achieved this objective without voting for this particular monstrosity.

Regards

David

Cllr David Kendall

Leader, Liberal Democrat Group

Brentwood Borough Council.

Hmmm … monstrosity.

Ok.

I’m certainly not be surprised that there’s been slightly iffy goings-on in the council chamber: you only have to look at Rollason Way’s parking to know there’s been a cock-up, somewhere.

But while I’m no economist, I’m fairly sure that that many film production companies tend to prefer make films roughly 90 minutes or so in length.   This means that they can – in the time it takes to show an episode of <i>Lord of the Rings</i> –  show two other movies, and make their money back faster.   Which, to me, implies having more screens, to do exactly that.

The movie business is exactly that: a <i>business</i>.

A multi screen cinema/cineplex*/what-ever they’re called, these day’s, is a way of maximising their investment in a faster time.

Which leads to what seems a sensible conclusion, to me.   That, simply, any developer who intends to build one will want to make one as large as possible; – with plenty of extra retail units, and the associated leases, to cover their costs.

Leave a comment, folks.

* That’s partly why the Brentwood’s 2-screen cinema went down.   Two screens meant more of a wait to see the new films we wanted to see.   Which automatically handed the two 6-screen cinemas at Lakeside an audience, on a plate.

What a Day

Jeeez, what a day. You really don’t want to ask about the day – or afternoon and evening, I should say – I’ve had at work.

Just don’t ask about power cuts. I’m just hoping the branch of Londis, near were I work, comes out of the hour and a quarter long power-cut we had.

But on to other things.

One upside to the End of the King Harold quiz is simply the fact I’ve more time to work on a table round/main round for the 17th of March – Saint Patrick’s night – and this week’s table round. I will be blogging, though. I’ll probably have more time pontificate about stuff …

Like movies. One nice thing about the week, is that my two sisters have offered to take me to see Watchmen, this weekend; – something I’m looking forward to.

But being able to walk to my nearest cinema to see it would be nice

Brentwood Council has now approved the cinema complex: you can read the Gazette’s coverage, here.

But let me quote it, though: this is from this week’s edition of the Brentwood Gazette, dated Thursday the 5th of March, and I’ll apologise for not giving the by-line of the writer, but a name’s not been given.

“AFTER four years of wranglings, a multi-million-pound cinema, retail and residential complex is coming to Brentwood.

The decision to allow development of a six-screen cinema, 10-level 654-space car park, shops and 14 new homes on the William Hunter Way car park was passed with a clear majority of 20 to eight.

Protesters, dismayed at the decision and insisting the development's size and scale is too big, have vowed to fight on.

The atmosphere during Wednesday's council debate was the most fraught in years.

The council chamber was packed with more than 80 residents many holding placards proclaiming ‘Ignored Town’.

Many more, who could notsqueeze inside, watched from a remote screen next door as proceedings were halted on several occasions due to heckling.

The decision has been described by some as the most significant since the A12 Brentwood bypass was built in 1964.

And while several councillors spoke out against the scheme, complaining that the size and scale would wreck the quality of life for those residents in Chestnut Grove, North Road and Western Avenue, only one Tory councillor – Margaret Brehaut – voted against it.

She described the £25million development as a carbuncle.

Lib Dem leader Cllr David Kendall said councillors were in danger of appearing reckless.

Tory councillor Russell Quirk, who had already ruled himself out of voting by speaking against the plans, appealed to councillors to follow their conscience.

Cllr Jan Pound was among the 20 Conservative councillors who voted in favour of the proposals.

She said she moved to Brentwood because Chelmsford had lost its soul and the development was vital to keep it from dying and to put some vibrancy back.

Phil Mynott, a member of Swan Paddocks Residents' Association, which is opposed to the plans in their current form, said: ‘This is not the end, we will we fight on.’

Cllr Mike Le Surf, leader of the Labour group, said: ‘The depressing decision by the Tories to push through this planning application in the face of such strong opposition, shows their disregard for the residents of the borough.’

"The administration were so keen to tell us that the town is dying but still supported a move that could kill off any real chance of recovery in the long term."

But Cllr Brandon Lewis, borough council leader, said: ‘This was a difficult decision for councillors to make, but one which had to be made.’

‘On balance, we have had to look at Brentwood as a whole and make a decision as to what is best for the entire borough.’

‘Whilst we acknowledge and understand some of the concerns raised by residents at the ordinary council meeting and during previous consultations, we are also aware of the vast numbers of people in Brentwood who support the development and wish to see it go forward.’

He said the development would bring significant economic benefits to the town bringing many new jobs.”

And, although I’m a touch more left wing than most, I’m can’t help but agree, to a point, with conservative Cllr Brandon Lewis’ basic point about job’s in this town of ours. I’m one of those people who’d like to benefit from applying for one.

And mildly shocked that Cllr Le Surf hadn’t brought this up. That could well be bias in the case of the journalist; – but shocking from someone representing a party founded to help and represent the working classes.

Which I’m not: but I work, and want more work.

I’ve also benefited from some of Brentwood’s new developments. My flat is in the unused industrial area around the gasworks, near Brentwood station.

So I can’t help but, generally welcome this: complete horlicks though the parking is.

You know, I think I might just email the link to the various named councillors. Just to get some idea of their views.

At The Movies

Movies.

My home town has long had a problem, with movies.

Or, it seems to me, going to the cinema …

Some five years ago — if my sometimes erratic memory serves me correctly — what was the Chapel High Shopping centre, and is now the Bay Tree Centre, had Brentwood’s only cinema.

So I was rather saddened when it closed about back then.

I don’t know about you, but I like seeing a film at the pictures, every so often …

These days, once or twice a year is a frantic amount of cinema going, but, when we had a reasonably priced local picture palace, it was much more frequent.

So when Brentwood announced its plans to allow a new one to be built in town, I was pleased.

No more tedious and pricey to Romford or Lakeside to catch a flick!

But there are objections: which can be found here.

Now, while I can understand people objecting to a given new development, particularly if it’s on their back door, I personally plan to ignore them.

I’d like to see a film, in a cinema in my home town.

I don’t want to pay extra, on a train, bus or cab, for the privilege.

Frankly, on my budget, I’d rather use that money on popcorn …