The Council are conducting a “Neighbourhood Consultation” about the Brentwood Local Plan.  I knew about this because there was a leaflet that came through the door, probably as a local paper insert.
The leaflet didn’t look like something from the council, in fact it looked more like it was promoting a party supply shop.
The “party supply shop” leaflet advised that the Council would be holding public consultations in a variety of places, one of which would be Brentwood High Street, on May 7th.
I turned up today expecting to find enthusiastic Council employees eager to solicit the public’s views on Planning policy and potential future development.  What I found was somewhat different.
A gazebo over a table was surrounded by “nice young people” who were both nice and young but not directly employed by the Council.  The Consultation appears to have been outsourced to a group who have run consultations elsewhere and so are very versed in planning policy and how to gather opinion.  What they don’t know is Brentwood or anything about the particular planning concerns that are relevant to this area.
The method for obtaining opinion varied depending upon the member of the public with whom they were dealing.  People who knew about the process and the current planning policy were invited to write their thoughts on small post-it notes and this was the category into which I seemed to fall.  Other people who just happened to be passing were encouraged to talk with their views being captured by the nice young folk who were writing on small post-it notes.  None of the ideas on the post-it notes were being attributed to any particular individual.  There was no data capture for future follow up.
I decided this was rather inefficient and asked for an e-mail address so I could send in my extensive thoughts on the matter.  The woman I was talking to looked startled by my request and told me she thought she’d seen one somewhere.  There were some leaflets on display and I suggested that an e-mail address might be there and she “didn’t think so.”  I looked and there was an e-mail address for further information but it was email@brentwood.gov.uk which is an e-mail address for all manner of general enquiries and perhaps not the best for a targeted consultation.  She then mentioned that there were some questionnaires “somewhere” and, sure enough, after a rummage around under the table she found a questionnaire with all of the information I needed.
If you do want to participate in this consultation, and you do want to have your details attributed to your input, then visit www.brentwood.gov.uk/yourneighbourhood. For some strange reason this link is configured such that it won’t work without the www.  And you can also e-mail planning.policy@brentwood.gov.uk for more copies of questionnaires or to find out more about the consultation.  There’s also a telephone number 01277 312610.

You have until July 1st and by completing a questionnaire you could win £50 of shopping vouchers (there are no terms and conditions that explain which shops so it could be for multiple copies of the Mayor’s 2011 calendar, who knows.)  There is also no privacy statement on the form despite the collection of personal data, but perhaps I’m expecting too much of our highly paid Council employees and their even more highly paid consultants.  So you need to be prepared for your details to be sold to the highest bidder….probably double glazing and kitchen salespeople.
I encourage you to get involved and not just via the yellow sticky note process because it’s your town and you deserve a say*.



*obviously only your town if you live in Brentwood.

The Council are conducting a “Neighbourhood Consultation” about the Brentwood Local Plan.  I knew about this because there was a leaflet that came through the door, probably as a local paper insert.

The leaflet didn’t look like something from the council, in fact it looked more like it was promoting a party supply shop.

The “party supply shop” leaflet advised that the Council would be holding public consultations in a variety of places, one of which would be Brentwood High Street, on May 7th.

I turned up today expecting to find enthusiastic Council employees eager to solicit the public’s views on Planning policy and potential future development.  What I found was somewhat different.

A gazebo over a table was surrounded by “nice young people” who were both nice and young but not directly employed by the Council.  The Consultation appears to have been outsourced to a group who have run consultations elsewhere and so are very versed in planning policy and how to gather opinion.  What they don’t know is Brentwood or anything about the particular planning concerns that are relevant to this area.

The method for obtaining opinion varied depending upon the member of the public with whom they were dealing.  People who knew about the process and the current planning policy were invited to write their thoughts on small post-it notes and this was the category into which I seemed to fall.  Other people who just happened to be passing were encouraged to talk with their views being captured by the nice young folk who were writing on small post-it notes.  None of the ideas on the post-it notes were being attributed to any particular individual.  There was no data capture for future follow up.

I decided this was rather inefficient and asked for an e-mail address so I could send in my extensive thoughts on the matter.  The woman I was talking to looked startled by my request and told me she thought she’d seen one somewhere.  There were some leaflets on display and I suggested that an e-mail address might be there and she “didn’t think so.”  I looked and there was an e-mail address for further information but it was email@brentwood.gov.uk which is an e-mail address for all manner of general enquiries and perhaps not the best for a targeted consultation.  She then mentioned that there were some questionnaires “somewhere” and, sure enough, after a rummage around under the table she found a questionnaire with all of the information I needed.

If you do want to participate in this consultation, and you do want to have your details attributed to your input, then visit www.brentwood.gov.uk/yourneighbourhood. For some strange reason this link is configured such that it won’t work without the www.  And you can also e-mail planning.policy@brentwood.gov.uk for more copies of questionnaires or to find out more about the consultation.  There’s also a telephone number 01277 312610.

You have until July 1st and by completing a questionnaire you could win £50 of shopping vouchers (there are no terms and conditions that explain which shops so it could be for multiple copies of the Mayor’s 2011 calendar, who knows.)  There is also no privacy statement on the form despite the collection of personal data, but perhaps I’m expecting too much of our highly paid Council employees and their even more highly paid consultants.  So you need to be prepared for your details to be sold to the highest bidder….probably double glazing and kitchen salespeople.

I encourage you to get involved and not just via the yellow sticky note process because it’s your town and you deserve a say*.

*obviously only your town if you live in Brentwood.

Edited Council Recommendation

This is just a contracted version of the full council document.  Instead of a few hundred pages I’ve extracted just the information relevant to the application BRW/83/2011

63 Objections were received by the Council. That’s just amazing.

Council recommendation, p. 73

Today the BRW/83/2011 application went onto the “weekly list” which is the list containing the Council Planning Department recommendations.  The recommendation is refusal.  Whilst that’s good news it is by no means a guarantee of success.  We need to wait to see if the application goes to a Committee Meeting and then see if there’s an appeal.  There is also the possibility of the submission of revised plans.  It’s a waiting game.

Sorry if I’ve misled you. I’ve just been told that Fairholme isn’t a Victorian property. I thought it was.

Hannah’s Letter

Dear Mr Tokley 

Subject: Objection to BRW/83/2011

I feel very strongly about the plans to demolish a Victorian house and build 10 flats especially as I live next door and some windows will overlook my garden and affect how I play with my brother. 

At the moment I can:
  •  Jump around on the trampoline
  • Play in the paddling pool
  •  Have birthday parties
  •  Roller skate
  • Cycle
  •  Have friends around
  • Go on the climbing frame

And if the plans go ahead I will not be able to do these things because I won`t know who is watching me and I won`t feel comfortable. 

One good thing is that there will be more cars parked on the road during the school run, and there will be less parking spaces available, so people won`t drive to school because they will know that there won`t be anywhere to park.  

Another thing that worries me is that when my friends are walking to school they might get run over from cars reversing in to and out of the parking area.  

Yours sincerely

Hannah Cardus (aged 8)

If you have a smartphone then download a QR code reader (i-nigma 4 is a good one for iPhone4 or iPhone with iOS4) and then open the app and use it on this image with your camera’s phone.  How geeky is that?

If you have a smartphone then download a QR code reader (i-nigma 4 is a good one for iPhone4 or iPhone with iOS4) and then open the app and use it on this image with your camera’s phone.  How geeky is that?

Useful thread on MoneySavingExpert.com

Someone who was in an area where a Victorian 5 bed house was being threatened with development asked for advice, and lots of people gave advice.  Click on the title of this article to be taken through to the information.

My letter

 Dear Mr Fagg 
Subject: Objection to BRW/83/2011 
I would like to register an objection to the plans submitted for the development of Fairholme in Highland Avenue. 
I own Rockland House, and am an immediate neighbour to the east of Fairholme. 
My issues are: 

Scale of proposed development 

  • The scale of the development will have a negative impact upon the character and appearance of the area. 
  • Four storeys on the corner of Highland Avenue and the Ongar Road would be out of keeping with the scale of neighbouring buildings and would create a prominent and incongruous addition to the street scene. 
  • This would be exacerbated by the proximity to the Ongar Road and Highland Avenue and the resultant loss of landscaping alongside Ongar Road. 
  • The comparison of the height of the proposed roof line of the development with the top of a chimney stack for a nearby property, and with properties a significant distance from the proposed development, is disingenuous and shows the sheer enormity and scale of this development. 
. Reference Policy CP1 criteria ii) and iii). 

Impact upon residential amenity 
  • Noise from traffic for 10 flats running along the boundary of Rockland House to the parking area. 
  • Noise from traffic in the parking area affecting 133 Ongar Road and 2 Treetops due to insufficient screening (incomplete earth bund and wall). 
  • Noise from more residents. 
  • There are first floor and stairwell windows that will directly face our garden with a clear view, affecting our privacy. 
  • Overlooking from balconies especially the balcony above the cycle store which has no barrier to the east. 
  • The real discomfort from invasion of privacy because of overlooking, the sheer scale of the property will ensure that our garden is no longer a pleasant place to sit and enjoy some outdoor space. 
  • Loss of light into Rockland House and its garden 
. Reference Policy CP1 criteria ii) and H8 criteria iv)  

Design of proposed development 
  • Whilst the exterior echoes the design cues of Springfield the proposed development has one more storey. 
  • The design is inappropriate in its context, and fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area and the way it functions. 
  • This development would not complement the neighbouring buildings in terms of scale, density, layout and access 
  • The development does not create, or enhance, the distinctive character of Highland Avenue and therefore does not support a sense of local pride and civic identity 
  • The front line of the proposed development is further forward than any other property in Highland Avenue which adversely impacts the street scene and the character of Highland Avenue. 
  • The development lacks a fence around the garden area at the rear for safety. 
  • In the elevations the height of the property is 11.85m yet in the Design and Access Statement it is shown as 11.2m. The Design and Access Statement therefore misrepresents the proposed height when compared with other buildings. 
. Reference Policy CP1 criteria i) and C19 criteria vi) 

Parking 
  • The 10 parking spaces shown on the plans do not meet the latest guidelines or minimum standards, here for reference: 
  1. Preferred bay size for cars 5.5m x 2.9m
  2. Minimum bay size (only used in exceptional circumstances) 5.0m x 2.5m 
  • 10 spaces is insufficient as the residents are likely to have more than one car per flat given that 50% of Brentwood residents have 2 or more vehicles. 
  • This last point is highlighted by the recent change in parking recommendations for developments which state that there should be one space per bedroom and a quarter of a space for visitors per property. This means the proposal should have 24 spaces. 
  • I note that the prior recommendation (2005) was that residents of the property should not be allowed resident’s parking permits which will only add to the significant issue of dangerous and illegal parking in the area. 
  • Whilst I would want to prevent illegal and dangerous parking, there isn’t the parking capacity to support the provision of resident’s parking permits on such a scale. 
  • Some of the cars used to provide turning circle data are no longer available from the manufacturer (but for reference Volvo S70 has turning circle of 10.2 metres). A more realistic vehicle to use to assess turning circles would be a Ford Mondeo (especially as Ford is a major employer in the area) which has a turning circle of 11.6 metres which would not be accommodated by the plans. If the Volvo comparison is considered appropriate then the V70 has a turning circle of 12.2 metres, which would not be accommodated by the plans. 
  • There is insufficient space for vehicles to manoeuvre in the parking area. A car needs to be able to park facing north, but turn to be able to exit facing south. This is not possible with the current layout. 
  • The parking suggested is not secure. 
  • Consider what happens if all 10 spaces are occupied and an eleventh vehicle enters the parking area. Where is there space to turn and exit without reversing along the driveway? 
. Reference Policy Vehicle Parking Standards: Design and Good Practice (September 2009) and Policy C19 criteria iii) 

Overdevelopment 
  • The site and surroundings cannot sustain the density of development proposed.  Especially when considered alongside other developments in the area including the approved Highwood development. 
  • The majority of this proposed development is designed to occupy space that is currently a garden and as such could be considered “garden grabbing” 
. Reference Policy CP1 criteria iv), v) and viii) and Government Planning Policy Statement 3 

Environment and Biodiversity 
  • This design would actively damage local biodiversity by removing laurels on the boundary of Ongar Road and a garden mainly laid to lawn. 
  • We have seen bats in our garden and believe there should be a study to determine whether this development would damage any existing bat habitat. 
  • We have seen badgers in our garden and a resident at 135 Ongar Road has video footage of badgers in their garden and we believe that elimination of the Fairholme garden may remove a foraging location. 
  • Existing hedges along the boundary with Ongar Road and on the boundary with Highland Avenue are to be removed. 
  • There is nothing in this scheme that leads me to believe that renewable energy has been considered at all for this development. 
. Reference Policy CP1 criteria viii), C5 criteria i), and ii), Government Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) including supplement Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate Change 

Highway and Pedestrian Safety 
  • Given the lack of space for vehicles to manoeuvre into and out of spaces at the back of the property, and vehicles park facing the rear of the site, then to exit the property drivers may only be able to reverse the entire distance back out to Highland Avenue which isn’t safe for residents of the development, for pedestrians on Highland Avenue and for vehicles entering Highland Avenue from the Ongar Road. 
  • As the rear garden area is only for the use of flats 1,3 and 4, it would seem that to access vehicles residents have to leave the flats by the Highland Avenue exit and walk along the drive to access their vehicles and refuse storage. Pedestrians should have a safer way to access their vehicles and refuse storage. 
  • There is restricted visibility of the proposed drive from the pavement. This piece of pavement is used by several hundred parents and children accessing the three schools in Sawyers Hall Lane and it is dangerous to have an obscured drive that will be carrying such a high volume of traffic. Because the parking is hidden from view, all residents will drive to the rear of the property to see if there is a vacant parking space and, if not, reverse back out onto Highland Avenue. The combination of cars with limited visibility of the pavement and children running along the pavement with a restricted view of the drive poses a significant danger. 
  • The junction of Ongar Road and Highland Avenue is a very busy junction and cars enter Highland Avenue and the scale of this development significantly increases the risk of road traffic accidents. More than ever before people shop online for everything. All of these goods are delivered and, for this development, this means that up to 38 residents at this address could be receiving multiple deliveries a week. 
  • Each time there is a delivery a van would park in a dangerous location near the junction with Ongar Road. This is dangerous for traffic coming onto Highland Avenue from Ongar Road, for traffic travelling out of Highland Avenue towards the Ongar Road and for the delivery drivers too. 
  • The paucity of parking provision also means that people are likely to use the space in front of the flats in Highland Avenue – taxi drivers, friends, residents. Regardless of why vehicles might park there the results could be serious, perhaps fatal. 
  • In order to collect the refuse the collection truck would have to park close to the junction with the Ongar Road for a considerable time creating a significant traffic hazard. 
  • This area is already the scene of significant congestion during the school run and when lorries delivering to, or collecting from, Travis Perkins wait in Highland Avenue. 
  • The addition of properties with 30 associated vehicles will exacerbate congestion. 
. Reference Policy CP1 criteria iv) and v) 

Damage to Rockland House 
  • If piled foundations are required we are concerned about the impact that this will have on the foundations of our own Victorian property. 

Other impact 
  • The development would spoil enjoyment of our garden. We would feel overlooked. When sitting in our garden we generally face west towards Fairholme. The development would dwarf our own house and garden and ruin the pleasant view we currently have. I invite the Planning Committee to come and sit in our garden to understand the difference this development would make to our outdoor space. 
  • There is a Facebook group opposed to this development here with over 70 supporters and growing. 
If you require clarification on any of these points, I shall be happy to help.
Yours sincerely  
Ann Cardus (Mrs) 

Recommended Parking Bay Sizes

This is a Brentwood adopted recommendation:

Parking Bay Size 

  • Preferred bay size for cars     5.5m x 2.9m 
  • Minimum bay size (only used in exceptional circumstances) 5.0m x 2.5m

The plans that have been submitted for the Fairholme Development meet neither the minimum nor the recommended parking bay size.