Dear Sir 

I was interested to read the various comments about the new rail bridge and possible improvements to the War Memorial area. There is no doubt the refurbished bridge is a great improvement especially as it appears to have been covered with anti graffiti paint. 
As far as the war memorial is concerned all this requires is to be kept tidy. It would be sad to lose the trees whilst seats would no doubt create another area for noisy youngsters to congregate at night. 
The main point in writing is to ask why nothing has been done to about the scruffy and dangerous pavements outside the shops in Radford Way. They are a nightmare for those with disabilities and illnesses such as Parkinson’s. 
Also the awful graffiti between Radford Way and Lake Meadows, on the footpath and in Lake Meadows itself. When will the graffiti busting team appear on the scene? 
Having lived in Billericay for 40 years it is sad to see these problem areas not being addressed. 

Yours faithfully

J.Henton

Dear Mr Stansfield 

First of all thank you for printing my birth place, Shelleys above the arch, many times in The Resident. I was born there 1 July 1920, also I was christened in St Mary Magdalen church in the High Street 
I understand a preservation order has been put on trees at the War Memorial site, does this mean that a person or persons accept responsibility if any one gets hurt? The trees are diseased and the roots of the tree facing the memorial to the left are above ground level and the brick wall is damaged by this occurring. A café to be built we have enough in Billericay now. 
When I was a boy the whole of the area was enclosed by a foot high wall with iron railings which were removed for the war. As regards lighting to illuminate the church I thought we were asked to save power. 

Yours sincerely

L.R.Scott (Mr) 

The Editor
The Resident

Dear Sir 

“What I tell you three times is true” 

I do not know which of his associates Lewis Carrol was “knocking” when he put those words into the Bellman’s mouth, in “The Snark”, but his implication is clear. If you say a thing often enough, people will believe it, rightly or wrongly. 
Which brings me to the page on the lime trees and the War Memorial in the October Resident. We are told that the lime trees are past their prime and should be removed, according to an unnamed arboriculturist. Is this report available for inspection, as I would like to see it? 
We were told the same tale in an earlier “Town Crier”; only on that occasion it was accompanied by a photograph of the tree, evidently bursting with rude health, which rather contradicted the statement. I think the trees to be healthy and relative youngsters. At Clumber Park in Nottinghamshire there is a DOUBLE Avenue of Limes, over 2 miles long and still strong though planted in 1838. 
I am under the impression that the War Memorial is the property of the British Legion and the scruffy tarmac area is for the Church to address. Could we not just leave those bodies to do what they will, when they will, without this uncalled for interference? 

Sincerely

D.E.Twichett.

 Dear Resident, 

Your last issue included a four-page questionnaire from the Billericay Design Statement Association.  No doubt their intentions are well-meaning but their activities and methods must be open to doubt.  Billericay, like most towns and cities, has grown to what it has become over the centuries by trial and error and under the influence of changing aesthetic fashion. Throughout the centuries many mistaken and ugly buildings have been erected and demolished. We are left mostly with he best. The residents in the 18^th Century undoubtedly felt that the 16^th and 17^th Century buildings had passed their sell-by dates and knocked them down to build in the latest style buildings which we now revere. Had there been preservation orders on the earlier buildings we would not have the benefit today of the later ones. We cannot preserve Billericay in aspic; the best we can do is to manage change to encourage the best of modern architecture when an older building has to be replaced.  Most often there is no ideal solution and there has to be a trade-off between gains and losses.  If there are guidelines which are too restrictive we end up with more characterless pastiches of older styles and nothing which speaks of the age in which we live. We have more than enough mock Tudor, faux-Georgian and Disneyland thank you very much.  

Whilst it seems superficially attractive to consult residents about how they want their town to look, any consultation needs to be thorough and thoughtful and any questions posed should be expressed in a neutral manner in order not to lead the respondents.  This questionnaire was a sad and dangerous document.  It was full of motherhood and apple pie questions about having more trees and preserving the green belt which were hardly worth asking.  But at least they were harmless.  More worringly, the most important questions did not lend themselves to simplistic “agree-disagree” answers.  An example was “flat roofs have aesthetic and practical disadvantages and should be avoided” - a heavily loaded question if ever there was one. The danger here is that hearsay about the tendency of flat roofs to leak and the prejudice inherent in the question’s wording could lead to widespread agreement with the proposition and for such a prohibition to be included in the guidelines of the style police.  What then happens if somebody wants to build a loving recreation of a 1930s art deco style house using the latest leak-proof technology or someone else wants to build a 21^st Century eco-home with a flat roof to collect rainwater and house solar panels?  Or a developer wants to use stylish modular factory building methods to create affordable housing? 

This type of questionnaire gets democracy and market research a bad name. It seems designed to encourage to NIMBYism and Luddite attitudes.  As with TV ratings, reduce aesthetics to head-counting and you inevitably get the lowest common denominator.  We should elect people to make informed decisions – if necessary calling in evidence from professionals – and let them get on with it.  By all means let them canvass public acceptability of major concrete proposals as widely as possible - using models and drawings, etc., - but inviting the public to set the guidelines in the abstract for flat roofs and fences, the siting of satellite dishes and wind turbines, etc.,  is sheer nonsense and a waste of time and money. Instead of designing rules to prevent change we should think of ways to incentivise architects and designers to change our town for the better by attracting the very best. 

Yours 

Andrew Papworth
10 Marks Close ~ Billericay ~ Essex CM12 0JH
(01277) 626627
ap@markquest.freeserve.co.uk