- Braintree District Council

Transcription

Statement of Consultation
Part 1 Regulation 18 Consultation
on the Draft Site Allocations and
Development Management Plan
Braintree District Council
January 2014
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Background
Introduction
Consultation Process
Consultation Responses Received
Summary of Main Issues and Officer Response
Appendix
Appendix 1
a) Copy of the response form
b) Copy of the guidance notes
Appendix 2
a) Copy of the notification letter sent to statutory consultees
b) Copy of the notification letter send to non-statutory consultees
c)
Appendix 3 List consultees
Appendix 4
a) Copy of the advert placed in local newspapers
b) Copy of the posters used to advertise consultation
c) Example of a site notice
Addendum
Copy of agendas, reports and minutes of the LDF Sub Committees of the 26th March, 11th
April, 8th May, 30th May, 13th June, 17th June, 11th July, 24th July 2013.
2
1. Background
In accordance with Regulation 22(l) (c) (i-iv) of the Town and Country Planning (Local
Planning)(England) Regulations 2012, this is a factual statement which sets out the following
information;
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Which bodies and persons Braintree District Council invited to make
representations under Regulation 18 on the draft Site Allocations and
How these bodies and persons were invited to make representations under
Regulation 18
A summary of the main issues raised by the representations made pursuant to
Regulation 18
How representations made pursuant of Regulation 18 were taken into account.
2. Introduction
Braintree District Council adopted its Core Strategy in September 2011. This set out the
overall spatial vision for the District and includes strategic policies in relation to housing,
employment, retail, the natural and built environment, open space and infrastructure.
In order to complete the suite of documents which make up a Local Development
Framework, work on a Site Allocations and Development Management Plan began soon
after the adoption of the Core Strategy.
The purpose of the Site Allocations and Development Management Plan is to provide further
detail on the implementation of the vision and strategic policies set out in the Core Strategy.
It includes detailed development management policies which will be used in the
consideration of planning applications in the District, the allocation of non-strategic sites for
housing, employment, retail and other community uses and reviewed development
boundaries for towns, villages and employment sites.
If found sound at examination, the Plan will replace the remaining policies and maps in the
Local Plan Review 2005.
This consultation statement sets out the way in which consultation was carried out under
Regulation 18 on the draft Site Allocation and Development Management Plan, the results of
that consultation including the numbers of responses and the main issues raised and how
these comments were taken into account when completing the Pre Submission Site
Allocation and Development Management Plan.
3. Consultation Process
The draft Site Allocations and Development Management Plan was published for 6 weeks
between 9th January and 22nd February 2013. The Council also consulted on a revised
Statement of Community Involvement at the same time.
3
The development management part of the Plan included a proposed policy and also set out
the alternative options which had also been considered. The Site Allocations part of the Plan
included a proposed map and in most cases one or more alternative maps which included all
the alternative sites which had been proposed for development and considered by the
Council.
The Plan was published on the Council’s website through its online consultation portal,
alongside the SA/SEA. It was also available to download from the website as a pdf, as was
the full evidence base of the Plan. A hard copy of the Plan was available to view at the main
Council offices in Braintree and libraries in the District had a copy of the Plan on CD. All
statutory consultees were also sent a copy of the Plan on CD and paper copies were
available on request.
A representation form and guidance notes on how to respond were also published on the
website and were distributed in paper form on request, including at the exhibition events and
these are included in Appendix 1a and b. Other written correspondence in the form of letters
and emails were also accepted as representations.
All statutory consultees including Town and Parish Councils, neighbouring local authorities
and major stakeholders such as the Environment Agency and Natural England were
informed by letter of the consultation and sent a copy of the Plan on CD. Notification
letters/emails were also were also sent to all those on the LDF consultation database which
includes local people, special interest groups, land owners and developers who had been
asked to be kept informed on the process. This was in the region of 2000 notification letters
and emails. A copy of the letters sent to statutory consultees and non-statutory consultees
can be found in Appendix 2 a and b respectively. A list of the people who were notified of the
consultation can be found in Appendix 3.
To order to ensure as wider public consultation and knowledge of the Plan and to stimulate
local debate, a number of other publicity measures were undertaken by the Council. This
included highlighting the consultation on the Council’s website, advertising the consultations
in local papers and advertising the consultation on social media sites and in the Council’s
electronic magazine. Posters were also produced which were distributed to local Parish and
Town Councils and displayed on community notice boards. The Council also produced site
notices which were displayed adjacent to all residential sites of 10 or more and all new
employment allocations. A copy of the advert in local papers, posters and the site notices
are included in Appendix 4 a, b and c respectively.
The Council also held a series a public consultation events across the District. These were
an opportunity for members of the public to find out further information on what was being
proposed, discuss this with officers and provide feedback. The exhibitions were held in the
three main towns (two sessions in Braintree and Witham) and in the six key service villages
and Great Yeldham (Great Yeldham had the largest residential allocation of all the ‘Other
Villages’ and is located further north than the key service villages). At least two officers from
Planning Policy were available at all times during the consultation events. Each consultation
event included site specific information relating to that town or village and maps for all the
towns and villages were available for discussion with officers at every event. Set out below is
a list of the days and times of the events held and the number of attendees;
4
Date and Time
15th January 1.30pm – 6.30pm
21st January 2.30pm – 7.30pm
22nd January 2.30pm – 7.30pm
23rd January 2.30pm – 7.30pm
31st January 2.30pm – 7.30pm
6th February 2.30pm – 7.30pm
7th February 2.30pm – 7.30pm
Location
Earls Colne
Witham
Witham
Braintree
Braintree
Great Yeldham
Coggeshall
Halstead
Hatfield Peverel
Sible Hedingham
Kelvedon
Silver End
Number of
Attendees
62
46
61
46
66
70
100
86
137
62
123
18
As well as the staffed exhibition, an unmanned display was also available at Braintree and
Witham libraries for the full 6 week consultation period and at Halstead library between the
9th and 22nd February. Other libraries in the District had a copy of the document on CD which
could be viewed during normal opening hours.
4. Consultation Responses Received
During the consultation period 1636 individual comments were received from 1007 separate
consultees. Several petitions were also received. During the consultation there was the
opportunity for landowners to submit further sites for consideration. 54 such sites were
submitted across the District.
All duly made representations were processed and added to the Council’s consultation
database. This means that they in the public domain and available to view. Comments
received were then considered in detail village by village and through the policy chapters by
the LDF Sub Committee at their meetings on the 26th March, 11th April, 8th May, 30th May,
13th June, 17th June and 11th July 2013 and changes were recommended in response to
those comments. The meeting on the 24th July included consideration of the comments on
the SA/SEA. The agendas, reports and minutes of these meetings can be found in the
addendum to this document
Prior to each LDF Sub Committee meeting, Planning Policy officers notified those people
who had commented on the sites, plans or policies which were to be considered at that
meeting. Officers also informed the landowners of sites, the relevant Town or Parish Council
and local ward members. The meetings were also generally webcast, enabling members of
the public not able to attend in person, to view proceedings.
Of the comments that were received during the consultation period, around 24% were
submitted directly to the online consultation portal, Objective, 22% were submitted by email
and the remaining 54% were received by letter.
5
5. Summary of Main Issues Raised
The remaining part of the document includes a summary of the main issues raised through
the consultation, chapter by chapter and village by village. For each there is a summary of
the comments and issues raised during the consultation period and what changes have
been made to the document following the public consultation period. It should be noted that
this is a summary of the main issues raised, therefore not all representations will be
referenced individually. All responses can however be read in full on the Councils website
http://braintree-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/. The addendum to this document includes the
reports and minutes of the LDF Sub Committees where the comments were considered in
detail and changes were proposed and agreed.
Introduction and Background
There were 17 comments received regarding this section of the Plan. The majority of these
expressed opinions that the plan positively assists the realisation of the Core Strategy and
Vision for the District. Other comments regarded a desire to see the plan strengthen
countryside protection, enforce the general role of village envelopes, and include specific
policies on urban and suburban tree planting, landscape protection and telecommunications.
One comment stated that BDC had poorly publicised the consultation event.
Changes Proposed: None
Sustainable Development
There were 26 comments received on this section of the Plan. General comments included a
desire to see a re-wording to more closely reflect the NPPF and better align to the spirit of
localism. Policy ADM1 received 6 comments and was praised in its commitment to growth
and criticised for a perceived lack of detail in comparison to the NNPF. One comment
regarded the lack of alternatives in light of a desire to see no additional growth in the District.
A total of 15 specific comments were made to Policy ADM2 and regarded how the policy
related to a presumption in favour of sustainable development, stated development
boundaries should be reviewed, and sought more positive wording. Other comments praised
reference to the protection of the historic environment, and also the importance of open
space and biodiversity within boundaries.
Changes Proposed: Wording changes to ADM2 Development within Development
Boundaries
Housing
A total of 86 comments were received regarding housing policy. General comments
surrounded a higher provision of housing to meet an objectively assessed need, and also
stated that current figures should be treated as a minimum to be exceeded. A
recommendation was made that small housing units should be provided to free up larger
housing units.
Policy ADM3 received 21 comments. These included a recommendation that phasing
restrictions are removed, sought a different balance of provision across the Key Service
Villages, and asked for more housing allocations in rural areas. Other comments stated a
desire to see more employment, recreation and leisure uses in Key Service Villages in
6
response to a perceived over-provision of housing, called for more housing in Cressing, and
looking at a new settlement to ease infrastructure issues in existing settlements.
ADM4 received 4 comments regarding a recommended change of wording placing an onus
on scheme providers to demonstrate the necessity for cross-subsidy market housing,
minimising visual and landscape impacts and suggesting a maximum limit to affordable
housing exception sites in order to limit rural impacts.
Of the 3 comments received for Policy ADM5, one recommended the policy refer to the
proximity of services by sustainable transport means. Other comments criticised a lack of
care home provision in the Plan and stated that for older persons' accommodation, the
healthcare impacts arising from such development should be identified and include
appropriate mitigation in the form of new or improved healthcare infrastructure and/ or
funding.
Policy ADM6 received 3 comments supporting the use of the Essex County Council Market
Position Statement to inform allocations and also the allocation of St Dominics Care Home in
Kelvedon for additional Care Home facilities.
Policy ADM7 also received 3 comments highlighting a desire for the Plan to make specific
allocatinos for enough Gypsy and Traveller sites to meet need, and a wish for a better
dispersal of Gypsy and Traveller sites.
A total of 6 comments were received for Policy ADM8. These regarded a support for the
protection of the historic environment, the effectiveness of the policy to achieve high quality
development, and the flexibility of the policy in light of the NPPF paragraph 59. Other
comments made related to a perceived incompatibility with Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy,
a recommendation that the requirement that all new dwellings would meet Lifetime Homes
Standards be removed , that there should be an emphasis that such developments should
be accessible by sustainable modes of travel, and that the phrase "appropriate standard of
residential accommodation" be clarified and explained.
Policy ADM9 received no comments, however Policy ADM10 received one related to a
perceived confusion and inconsistency between the two policies in regard to extensions of
original dwellings.
Policy ADM11 received 2 comments related to a need for buildings of architectural or historic
value and criteria to apply across all areas of the District and the need for a list of such
features, that the policy should be expanded to include resilience measures for replacement
dwellings in medium or high flood risk areas, and also to expand the criteria for rural
worker’s dwellings beyond agricultural operations to include retirement homes for farmers
and food processing activities.
Policy ADM12 received 1 comment supporting the wording of the policy but recommending
that the section of the policy that deals with the consenting of temporary rural workers
dwellings include an additional sentence which clarifies the position following a lapse of the
initial three year period.
A total of 6 comments were received for Policy ADM13. These recommended that
outbuildings should not be converted into housing, be more flexible in regard to infilling and
7
to include additional consideration for previously developed land. Other comments sought
more consideration for infilling in rural communities to support services, stronger protection
for hamlets and support for an alternative of reducing the threshold property numbers in
hamlets for allowing infill plots.
Policy ADM14 received 2 comments; one supporting the policy and criteria looking to
minimise impacts, and one objecting to the appropriateness of permitting garden extensions
into the countryside as a material change of use.
Changes to Plan: Wording changes to policies ADM3 Housing Allocations, ADM4 Affordable
Housing in the Countryside, ADM5 Specialist Housing, ADM6 Care Homes and Specialist
Housing Allocations, ADM8 Housing and Density, ADM11 Replacement Dwellings in the
Countryside, ADM12 Rural Workers Dwelling in the Countryside ADM13 Hamlets, paragraph
3.17, 3.62 and 3.70. New policy and supporting text ADM13A, Previously Developed Infill
Sites in the Countryside.
Employment
In total, 28 comments were made in response to the employment chapter of the Plan.
General comments praised the approach and consistency with the NPPF.
Policy ADM15 received 9 comments. These included a preference for such matters to be
decided through the NPPF, that the Local Plan Review Policy (RLP33) provides more
comprehensive information, and that bulky retail goods, trade counters and retail
warehouses should be allowed in Employment Policy Areas. Other comments requested the
inclusion of site RIV3EAlt as part of the existing Eastways Industrial Estate, the removal of
site SIB3E and reallocation for housing and that land west of the A131 at Great Notley
should be included within the schedule of Employment Policy Areas.
Policy ADM16 received no comments, however Policy ADM17 received 1 comment
specifying that site HEL2 should be removed as a business and industrial use and allocated
solely for business in ADM16.
There were 3 comments received for Policy ADM18; one praising the policy in light of the
NPPF, one supporting the inclusion of Site SIB3 for B1 Business Use and Leisure and
another specifying that the site should be reallocated for housing.
Policy ADM19 received 1 comment related to a perceived lack of flexibility related to
landscape management.
Of the 2 comments received for Policy ADM20, one supported the policy’s stance on
reducing the need to travel, whilst the other believed the policy to be a possible deterrent
regarding the delivery of employment land.
Policy ADM21 received 3 comments. These included support for the inclusion of marketing
criteria, a desire to see criteria expanded to support residential conversion in the
countryside, and a request for amendments regarding forthcoming changes to permitted
development rights in respect of change of use from office to residential.
Policy ADM22 received 1 comment supporting the alternative of reliance on a presumption in
favour of sustainable development.
8
Policy ADM23 received 3 comments. These praised the safeguarding of heritage assets,
sought definitions for ‘remote’ and ‘acceptable locations,’ and recommended the first
sentence be reworded to stress that locations remote from local services would not be
supported.
Changes to Plan: Wording amendments to policy ADM15 Employment policy areas, ADM16
Business Uses, ADM17 Business and Industrial Uses, ADM19 Design and Layout of
Employment Policy Areas and Business Uses, ADM21 Change of Use of Commercial
Buildings in the B Use Class, paragraphs 4.6 and 4.7 and updated information in tables 3
and 4. Delete policy ADM20 Workplace Nurseries, ADM22 Promotion of Employment
Clusters and ADM23 Rural Enterprise
Retail
The Retail chapter of the Plan received 24 comments in total. Policy ADM25 received 1 of
these stating that reference to Local Centres was missing . Policy ADM26 received 2
comments, one supporting the policy’s threshold in regard to the NPPF and another stating
that the policy wording could be clearer.
Policy ADM27 received 3 comments. These included praise to commitments regarding
public realm improvements, a desire to see Local Centres given equal weight to those of
towns, and a recommendation that additional wording be included on green infrastructure.
Policy ADM28 received no comments.
Policies ADM29 and ADM30 received 1 comment each, both stating that the plan is unlikely
to meet the assessed development and infrastructure requirements over the plan period,
does not offer the most appropriate strategy as it unnecessarily discounts reasonable
alternatives, and is unlikely to be deliverable due to the identification of retail sites which
suffer from significant constraints. This comment was also received for Policy ADM33, with
an additional request to replace land to the east of the High Street with Weavers Court.
Policy ADM31 received 2 comments stating that development should be allowed where
there is no detriment to parking supply, and also that the car park at Braintree Retail Park
and Freeport is being treated contrary to the NPPF and that forthcoming applications would
not be treated on their own merits.
Policy ADM32 also received 2 comments. Of these, one stated that additional land should be
identified for retail warehousing at land south of Millennium Way, and that the policy was
inconsistent and contradictory with itself; and the other sought the proposed retail
warehousing allocations for Swanvale and Maltings Lane to be replaced as employment use.
A total of 3 comments were received for Policy ADM34. These welcomed desired
improvements to Witham, in particular regarding Newland Shopping Centre, and also
recommended that the policy should exclude above ground decking or multi-storey car
parking. A single response was received for Policy ADM35 requesting an amendment to
include community uses.
Policy ADM36 received 5 responses. These welcomed the protection of the historical assets
in part, and also stated constraints related cost, public opinion, lack of potential developers,
biodiversity, archaeology, access, traffic, safety of nearby school pupils and its visual impact
on the townscape. Other comments stated that the nature conservation value of the land has
9
not been adequately evaluated, that at there were tree preservation orders on site and that
the site should be allocated as an educational, social and recreational resource. Policy
ADM37 received 1 comment expressing support.
Changes to Plan: Wording changes to ADM24 Primary Shopping Areas, ADM25 District
Centre, ADM26 Impact Assessments, ADM27 Town, District and Local Centre
Improvements, ADM31 Car Parking – Freeport and Braintree Retail Park, ADM32 Retail
Warehouse Development, ADN35 Comprehensive Development Area – Rickstones
Neighbourhood Centre, Dorothy Sayers Drive, Witham, ADM36 Comprehensive
Development Area – land to the east of the High Street, Halstead. To delete policy ADM29
Braintree Retail Park. To include new policy and supporting text ADM37A Broomhills
Regeneration Site
Community Facilities
A total of 20 comments were received on the Community Facilities chapter. Of these, 3 were
received for Policy ADM38. These included support, a requirement that some re-modelling
and extension would be needed of existing schools and also one comment stating that the
policy should be deleted as the new school falls within the extent of the North-West Braintree
Growth Location which is relevant only to the Core Strategy.
Policy ADM39 received 1 comment stating that proposals would be difficult to assess in light
of new government guidance and the absence of an up-to-date assessment of playing pitch
needs.
Policy ADM40 also received a solitary comment stating that the Bocking site is unsuitable
due to high water levels and those at Gestingthorpe and Witham would require a tier 1 risk
assessment.
Policy ADM41 received a total of 4 comments. These stated that the requirement for
community use is already established in the adopted Core Strategy, questioned whether
developer contributions relate to a proposed pooled contribution, or to specific proposals,
that the land at Oxford Meadow in Sible Hedingham should be included for Community
Uses, that the policy should separate new and existing allocations, and that there should be
a consistent approach to designation of community halls.
A total of 3 comments were received for Policy ADM42. These stated the importance of
continued provision or improvement of existing facilities, and a request that an 'additional
policy' within the Local Plan is included relating to Health Impact Assessments.
Policy ADM43 also received 3 comments. These professed support for the approach and
also one stating that it is the role of NHSNE to commission all healthcare facilities in the plan
area.
Policy ADM44 received 3 comments also. These requested Molly’s Wood, Sible Hedingham
for inclusion, the retention of a buffer between two rear gardens on Witham River Walk and a
recommendation that new community woodland be included at Silver End.
Changes to Plan: Wording changes to policies ADM38 Education Provision, ADM39
Educational Establishments, ADM40 Cemetery Extensions, ADM41 Community Uses,
ADM43 Retention of Local Community Services and Facilities and ADM44 Community
10
Orchards and Community Woodlands and additional paragraph 6.7 and new policy ADM43A
Health and Wellbeing Impact Assessment and supporting text,
Transport
The transport chapter of the Plan evoked 39 responses. Of these, 5 were received for Policy
ADM45. These included requests for re-wording as to what criteria apply for different types
of development, that plug-in charging points are not needed in all residential developments,
that there be triggers for provision of additional public transport linked to increased
population, and a more positive statement of intent regarding the provision of sustainable
modes of transport, cycling and walking in new developments.
Policy ADM46 received 7 comments. One of these questioned the legitimacy of the policy as
changes to CIL will make pooled s106 contributions unlawful and another stressed concerns
that the policy would be inflexible in times of economic hardship. Other issues raised
regarded the need for two bridging points on Witham River Walk, the request for a new
policy promoting the provision of rural footways and cycleways, a desire for a cycle route
between Coggeshall and Braintree, the reinstatement of a cycleway/footway designation for
Little Braxted Lane, and provision for a cycle path along the disused railway track at the
Premdor Rockways site in Sible Hedingham.
There were 3 comments received for ADM47. These sought the exclusion of a link road to
Cut Throat Lane in Witham, and improvements on this side of the station to focus on cycling,
walking, taxi and bus provision. Other comments recommended parking provision be on the
Easton Road side of the station and questioned the legitimacy of the Council allocating
Eckard House when it was privately owned.
Policy ADM48 also received 3 comments. These recommended the policy be more flexible
in regard to potential uses of the site including residential, care home, residential and nonresidential institutions, assembly and leisure and hotel uses. Other comments recommended
applications include substantial planting and landscaping, hours of operation conditions, well
designed lighting and a comprehensive environmental improvement brief.
Policy ADM49 received 19 responses. Regarding the Witham Station Access element of the
policy, the majority opposed the access arrangements due to increased traffic and
associated pollution, as well as flooding and heritage impacts. The A131 Halstead By-Pass
proposal received comments stressing concerns on heritage and landscape, deliverability,
relationship with other plans and programmes, funding, and impacts in Suffolk. It was also
suggested that large scale housing proposals should pay the costs of necessary
infrastructure improvements.
Changes Proposed: Wording changes to policies ADM45 Sustainable Access for All, ADM47
Parking Provision, ADM48 Transport Related Policy Areas, ADM49 New Road Schemes and
paragraph 7.25 and 7.7.
Environment
A total of 62 comments were received for this chapter. General comments requested greater
consideration of the historic environment, and a stronger policy stance regarding protection.
Other comments supported the extension of the Dedham Vale AONB and the consideration
of the Amphamstone and Lamarsh area for the same designation.
11
Policy ADM50 received 5 comments. There was support for the protection of ponds, rivers
and woodlands, however recommendations that the policy be more aspirational in its
enhancement of local character, the connection of habitats, the Stour Valley, heritage and
the historic manmade dimension of the landscape. Further considerations were requested
for National Red Data Book and Essex Red Data Book species and acknowledgement of the
Water Framework Directive.
Policy ADM51 received 4 comments, predominantly related to the identification of impacts.
Comments included a desire for local people to input into proposals, that ecological surveys
and applications be undertaken by leading professionals and professional bodies, that
ancient woodland requires further protection, that the Water Framework Directive should be
referenced and that any negative impact should warrant immediate refusal. Regarding
intensive livestock breeding, this element of the policy was deemed too restrictive in
accumulation with a requirement for an EIA and that the word ‘intensive’ should be defined.
There were 9 comments received for Policy ADM52. These questioned whether the policy
was overly prescriptive, did not cover floodlighting or heritage issues, and was not mindful
enough of nearby residents. Further comments called for more weighting to bridleways, less
weighting to traffic movements and an additional emphasis on chicken rearing/laying. The
policy was also praised for its design criteria regarding new buildings. Policy ADM53
received no comments.
Policy ADM54 attracted a total of 9 comments. These praised the stance on Protected
Lanes, called for more detail on natural features, sought additional statements regarding the
reason for road repairs and emphasis that vehicle types are as important as vehicle
numbers. There were also requests for an additional 9 lanes to be given Protected Lane
status.
There were 4 comments received regarding Policy ADM55. These sought inclusion within
the policy that schemes should not go over the requirements of the Building Regulations,
energy efficiency measures and that there may be some difficulty in converting historic
buildings to Code 3. The inclusion of references to reducing water consumption were
welcomed.
Policy ADM56 received 5 comments. These largely supported the policy’s stance on historic
buildings, renewable energy and impacts on water. Recommendations were made
regarding a minimum requirement for renewable energy in all new builds, clarity around
Flood Defence Consents and an acknowledgement that tree and hedge planting may have
negative impacts on non-wooded areas of high wildlife.
There were 3 comments received regarding Policy ADM57. These requested further
reference to heritage assets, archaeology, consultation with sewerage undertakers, and
contamination and the phasing of remedial measures. Support was received for the policy’s
inclusion of historical contamination.
Policy ADM58 received 2 comments. One favoured the alternative to ensure locations are
appropriate and the other requested early engagement with the relevant Wastewater
Company.
12
There were 4 comments received for Policy ADM59. These recommended a reference to the
protection of heritage assets in terms of external lighting, a more prescriptive policy wording
and that applicants should demonstrate the need for security lighting. There was also
support for the policy’s comprehensiveness.
Changes to the Plan: Wording changes to policies ADM50 Landscape Character, ADM51
Protection of Biodiversity and Geodiversity, ADM52 Built Development in the Countryside,
ADM54 Protected Lanes ADM55 Energy Efficiency, ADM56 Renewable Energy, ADM57
Contaminated Land, ADM59 External Lighting and paragraph 8.6, 8.16. 8.40 – 8.47, 8.55.
New policy and supporting text ADM53A Redundant or Disused Buildings in the Countryside
Design, Conservation and Listed Buildings
The Design, Conservation and Listed Buildings chapter received a total of 29 comments.
General comments recommended that the policy be extended to consider heritage assets at
risk, that heritage assets not designated be recognised through a "Local List” and that good
design should be compulsory for all design and access statements.
Policy ADM60 received 5 comments. These recommend that the Council be consistent with
the Government's zero carbon buildings and climate change adaptation policy and adopt
nationally described standards, that the viability of some proposals would be jeopardised,
reference to waste separation for recycling internally and externally, and reference to flood
resilience and resistance. Comments also praised the policy’s aspirational objectives and
reference to the Essex Design Guide.
There were no comments received for Policy ADM61. Policy ADM62 received 1 comments
related to a desire to have protection for existing historic shop fronts and guidance on
security shutters.
Policy ADM63 received 3 comments. These stated that reference to local conservation area
appraisals and management plans would provide a more locally distinctive policy, that there
was some prepetition with policy ADM60 and that Local Plan Review Policy RLP96 offered
more detail.
Policy ADM64 received 1 comment recommending amalgamation with Policy ADM65 and
the provision of guidance documents on shop front and adverts. Policy ADM65 received two
comments supporting the policy and recommending down-lighting for frontages and signs.
There were 3 comments received for Policy ADM66. These stated better alignment with the
NPPF and English Heritage guidance regarding enhancement, appropriate control and what
constitutes ‘significance’ in the policy.
Policy ADM67 received 3 comments. These requested a demonstration that no viable use of
the building can be found, or preservation secured through other means. Support was
received for the month period to record a listed building prior support for demolition, however
a recommendation was made that the policy require an appropriate historic building
recording brief from the planning authority in order to ensure a permanent record of the
historic building or structure is made.
There were 2 comments made for Policy ADM68. These sought better alignment with
English Heritage policy regarding enabling development and also the wording within the
13
NPPF, the formulation of a Local List of buildings, and expansion to include the 7 tests set
out in English Heritage guidance.
Policy ADM69 received 1 comment related to consistency with the NPPF regarding
consultation of the relevant historic environment record.
Changes Proposed: To make minor wording changes to ADM60 Layout and Design of
Development, ADM63 Preservation and Enhancement of Conservation Area and Demolition
within Conservation Area, ADM65 Illuminated signs in Conversation Areas, ADM66
Alteration and Extensions and Changes of Use to Listed Buildings or Structures and their
Settings, ADM67 Demolition of Listed Buildings or Structures, ADM68 Enabling
Development, ADM69 Archaeological Evaluation, Excavation and Recording and paragraph
9.3 and 9.17.
Sport and Recreation
The Sport and Recreation chapter received 18 comments. General comments related to the
absence of any allocations in the plan for new sports facilities and the inclusion of a policy
which confirms the sites that will be allocated for meeting sport and recreation needs.
Within this chapter, Policy ADM70 received 1 comment of support and adherence to the
NPPF. Policy ADM71 received 3 comment, which suggested the inclusion of a presumption
against the artificial lighting of golf courses and driving ranges.
Policy ADM72 received 3 comments. These focused on a perceived omission of policy
regarding the effect of noisy sports on other users of the countryside and also criteria
involving recreational aircraft strips. Support was received for the Hatfield Peverel County
Park.
There were no comments received regarding Policy ADM73. Policy ADM74 received 6
comments with a general consensus of support. There were concerns about traffic impacts,
inclusive access for those without cars and also a request to move the location west in order
to better define the Hatfield Peverel Village Envelope.
There was 1 comment made regarding Policy ADM75 which suggested clarification
regarding how applicants are expected to 'demonstrate the need' for tourist development.
Changes Proposed: Minor wording changes to policy ADM71 Golf Courses and Driving
Ranges, ADM72 Sports Causing Noise or Disturbance and ADM75 Tourist Development.
New policy 75A on New Formal and Informal Recreation Allocations.
Delivery
The delivery chapter of the plan attracted 4 comments. These requested modifications to
more accurately reflect the NPPF and The Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 in
relation to Planning Obligations and CIL.
Glossary, Appendix 1 and Appendix 2
No comments received.
Proposals Map
A total of 54 comments were made to the Draft Proposals Map however these have been
summarised on a village by village basis below.
14
Ashen
The inset map(s) for Ashen received 2 comments; supporting the plan and requesting an
amendment to the village envelope.
Changes Proposed: Development boundary increased to the rear of Street Farm.
Belchamp St Paul and Belchamp Otten
The inset map(s) for Belchamp St Paul received 1 comment of support and rejection of the
alternatives.
Changes Proposed: Amended extent of churchyard in Belchamp Otten, additional areas of
visually important open space designated in Belchamp St Paul.
Birdbrook and New England
Two additional sites were put forward near New England for consideration as residential and
community sites. The Parish Council were not supportive unless substantial community
facilities and road improvements could be provided.
Black Notley
The inset map(s) for Black Notley received 7 comments; four in regard to the proposed map
and 3 regarding alternatives. The proposed map attracted comment on visually open space
restricting development for older persons accommodation, a desire to not see the village
envelope extended and requesting improvements to Galleys Corner roundabout. Comments
regarding alternatives stated that an alternative should be allocated, and supported the
rejection of another due to impacts on protected species.
Changes Proposed: Boundary of visually important open space at Bedells Avenue amended.
Braintree and Bocking
The inset map(s) for Braintree and Bocking received 277 comments, 245 of which were on
proposed allocations. General concerns related to a wish to see smaller and more affordable
homes, and that the level of growth is too small and poorly located to stimulate required
infrastructure and economic growth, need for further retail development and parking supply.
English Heritage noted opportunities for enhancement of the Conservation Area from some
allocated sites. Most comments related to site BON16H off Broad Road and were regarding
traffic, loss of countryside and wildlife, impact on services, drainage, impact on public right of
way, could set a precedent and its potential for open space. Support for the site was
expressed by the developer.
Support for alternative sites were set out by landowners including housing need, use of
brownfield sites, reflecting neighbouring character, sustainable locations and delivery of
community facilities. Objections for alternative sites were submitted regarding loss of
greenfields and trees, traffic issues, drainage and flooding, views and loss of recreation
space.
Comments were submitted on BON5CH that there are heritage concerns and precedent by
allocating more than the frontage of the site but there was also support expressed by the
landowner. Comments on BRC7H including the access and traffic and impact on facilities.
Five new sites were submitted during the consultation period for consideration in Braintree
and Bocking and one additional site at High Garrett.
15
Changes Proposed: BON16H off Broad Road was removed as a residential site of 10 or
more dwellings, increased site area for residential site of 10 or more, BRE26H Braintree
Tennis Club, allocate additional area of parking adjacent to Freeport Station and remove
incorrect allocation of allotment at Dukes Road, informal recreation at Rifle Hill and
education land at Lister Road.
Bulmer
The inset map(s) for Bulmer resulted in 3 comments being made in response to the
alternative allocations. These supported the rejection of these sites on grounds of impacts
on heritage assets, traffic safety, sewerage capacity, loss of open space, and a lack of
capacity in local schools and healthcare.
Change Proposed: None
Bulmer Tye
The inset map(s) for Bulmer Tye resulted in 1 comment supporting the rejection of an
alternative due to the site containing a small motte and bailey castle.
Bures Hamlet
The inset map(s) for Bures Hamlet resulted in 2 responses. One supported the rejection of
alternatives on grounds of the capacity of local infrastructure, a lack of adequate retail
facilities, traffic impacts and visual impacts. The other commented that an alternative should
be allocated and Bures be designated as a Key Service Village.
Castle Hedingham
The inset map(s) for Castle Hedingham resulted in 5 comments, all surrounding the
alternatives. Of these, 2 support their rejection on grounds of wildlife, habitat, historic and
landscape impacts; however the majority felt that a number of the alternatives should be
allocated for housing.
Changes Proposed: Amendment to development boundary at Nunnery Street
Coggeshall
The inset map(s) for Coggeshall had approximately 70 comments. Comments on COG12H
were received regarding support for logical infill, room for parking and traffic generated
would be minimal. Objections for housing submitted due to Conservation area, brownfield
sites first, flood risk, sewers crossing the site, traffic, access and parking. Support for
residential development from COG13Halt regards need for additional houses, off street
parking proposed, green space proposed, no impact on neighbours. Comments objecting to
residential development here included on intrusion of the countryside, archaeological
interest, increase traffic, impact on heritage assets, flooding. Comments on alternative sites
in the village included support from developers for sites and suggest review of development
boundary, impacts on local wildlife site, increased surface water drainage issues, harm to
historic assets, and to include the Dutch Nursery in the development boundary.
Changes Proposed: Vicarage Field changed to informal recreation, site COG20H Walford
Way allocated for a residential site of 10 or more, COG21H Beaumont House allocated for a
residential site of 10 or more.
16
Colne Engaine
The inset map(s) for Colne Engaine resulted in 1 comment. This objected to the dismissal of
the alternatives, and wished the village envelope be expanded to include their allocation for
housing and mixed-use development.
Cornish Hall End
The inset map(s) for Cornish Hall End received 2 responses stressing a lack of infrastructure
to support development, an inadequate public transport system, and impacts on the
character of the settlement.
Cressing and Cressing Tye
The inset map(s) for Cressing resulted in 4 comments being received, all regarding
alternatives. Of these, most were supportive of the rejection regarding extensions of the
village envelope into Greenfield land, coalescence with neighbouring settlements and
impacts with predicted traffic congestion. Objections to the rejection of alternatives
surrounded those on PDL, where they’d form a natural extension to Cressing, their proximity
to services and their enhancement, and also the benefits of developer contributions and
open space. Three additional sites were proposed for development.
Earls Colne Airfield
The inset map(s) for Earls Colne Airfield received 5 comments, 3 of which responded to
proposed allocations. These generally supported allocations as Employment Policy Areas,
with some requests that they be expanded to include further land, and one comment stating
that development would further increase commercial traffic. Support for the rejection of
alternatives was received due to impacts on a Local Wildlife Site.
Changes Proposed: Amend development boundary to the south and include site 9A and B
as a B1-B8 uses.
Earls Colne and White Colne West
The inset map(s) for Earls Colne and White Colne West received 27 comments, 21
responding to proposed allocations. Comments stated that Earls Colne has recently seen
development increase the size of the village by 10%, that housing need has been
overestimated in the Plan and current capacity issues regarding healthcare, schools,
sewerage, telecommunications and local roads. Further comments questioned the level of
Greenfield development, the location of open space allocations and flooding issues. A large
amount of comments were received regarding impacts on the Conservation Area and the
countryside. Some support was expressed for both some of the allocations, especially the
employment sites, and also the rejection of alternatives. There was some support also for an
alternative site for housing.
Changes Proposed: Residential allocation of 10 or more at site EAR3H amended, structural
landscaping added, amendment to informal recreation extent. Residential allocation of 10 or
more at site EAR1N and EAR1S extended, informal recreation amended and structural
landscaping added. Remove visually important open space at De Vere Road.
17
Earls Colne and White Colne East
The inset map(s) for Earls Colne and White Colne East received 8 comments; 4 each related
to proposals and alternatives. These objected to the extension of the village envelope, that
the site is too small for the level of development, that the allocation was contrary to the
Village Design Statement, that there would be negative impacts on historic views, wildlife
and tranquillity and that there would be pressure on local schools, doctors and local roads.
There was some support for the proposal in relation to a modest supply of rural housing.
The rejection of the majority of alternatives was supported, with support for one site stating
its location and lack of impacts on neighbouring properties as a positive. An additional
residential site was proposed in White Colne during the consultation period.
Changes Proposed: Residential site for 10 or more at WHC3H off Colchester Road was
removed.
Feering
The inset map(s) for Feering received 162 comments with 128 of these responding to the
proposed allocation at FEE10 Inworth Road. Objections were submitted as Feering is not a
Key Service Village, outside development boundary, greenfield, no demand or jobs, traffic
impacts, lack of footway, facilities are at capacity and overlooking. Anglian Water were
concerned about the capacity of waste water treatment works and surface water network.
Support was received from the landowner due to its sutainable location, links to village and
contained landscape impact. Support representations were submitted to alternative sites
from developers including their sustainable location and good links to the village and
facilities.
Changes Proposed: Site FEE10H Inworth Road removed as residential site. Site FEE4H
London Road added as a residential site of 10 or more.
Finchingfield
The inset map(s) for Finchingfield received 4 comments, of which 3 responded to the
alternatives. These supported their rejection due to sites being located outside the village
envelope, impacts on the historical character of the settlement, an inadequate public
transport system to support development and increased traffic.
Foxearth and Liston
The inset map(s) for Foxearth and Liston received 2 comments, both regarding the
alternatives. There was support for rejection due to potential impacts on an SSSI, flooding
issues and poor transport infrastructure. Support was received for employment development
in the area.
Gestingthorpe and Audley End
Two additional sites were submitted for consideration in Gestingthorpe and Audley End by
the landowner, of which the Parish Council were not supportive.
Gosfield and Airfield
The inset map(s) for Gosfield and Airfield received 10 comments; 8 of which responded to
alternative allocations. Of these, the majority supported rejection due to possible traffic
problems, the type of housing, the destruction of the village’s nature, infrastructure issues,
18
drainage problems, impacts on residents, wildlife and heritage impacts and issues regarding
the Spinney. Support for alternatives responded to a range of community benefits and
infrastructure improvements arising from development that extend to the wider community. A
request for the affordable housing policy to be changed was made in order to make an
alternative site viable. Four additional sites were put forward by landowners for residential
development in the Parish
Great Bardfield
The inset map(s) for Great Bardfield received 7 comments. Of these, 5 responded to the
proposed allocations. Comments both objected to and supported the alteration of the village
development boundary. Other comments involved a request to remove a Visually Important
Open Space designation, supported the allocation of Local Wildlife Sites, and promoted a
site for 12 properties to meet local need. The alternative map was supported, with comments
citing impacts on the setting of the church and development detracting from the character of
the village.
Changes Proposed: Area to the rear of the Town Hall designated as informal open space,
area adjacent to the fountain as visually important open space
Great Maplestead
The inset map(s) for Great Maplestead received 33 comments; 17 of which responded to the
proposed allocations and 16 to the alternatives map. Objections to allocations believed there
to be no policies that support such inclusion of housing, that there is sufficient capacity
inside the village envelope, that changes to the envelope will stimulate back fill applications,
a lack of waste disposal facilities, inadequate access, landscape issues, drainage problems,
a lack of facilities to support development and that development would be contrary to the
Village Design Statement. The rejection of alternatives was supported in regards to a lack of
facilities, congestion issues, noise pollution, poor gas supply and telecommunications
capacity, drainage and sewerage issues, and lack of privacy. There was one instance of
support for development at an alternative site, however only for a single dwelling of high
quality design.
Major Changes: None
Great Notley
The inset map(s) for Great Notley received 4 comments; 3 of which responded to the
alternatives map. Comments concerned the impacts of allocations in neighbouring Braintree
would have on their educational and health resources, and objections were made to the
rejection of alternative allocations that are perceived as highly sustainable.
Great Saling
The inset map(s) for Great Saling received 1 comment generally supporting the Plan.
Great Yeldham
The inset map(s) for Great Yeldham received 18 comments; 14 of these regarding the
proposed allocations. Comments regarding the proposed allocations regarded issues such
as drainage, impacts on listed buildings, the development of Greenfield land, the safety of
the access proposals, loss of sunlight and privacy to neighbouring properties, noise
19
disturbance and flooding. Alternative sites received comments regarding safety of access,
parking issues, loss of wildlife, congestion and noise pollution. A further site was proposed
for housing that was previously safeguarded for employment which received numerous
positive comments in support surrounding it’s inclusion of a surgery and a large playing field,
the site being previously developed and visual improvements. A new site for residential
development and regeneration of the employment area was submitted during the
consultation for Hunnables Industrial Estate.
Changes Proposed: Amendment of residential site area GRY3H Nuns Walk Field and
inclusion of community uses, Whitlock Green allocation changed from community uses to
informal recreation, additional of informal recreation designation at corner of High
Street/Toppesfield Road, designation of GRY5H as a residential site of 10 or more including
a site for community uses, reduction in employment allocation at Hunnables Industrial
Estate.
Halstead
The inset map(s) for Halstead received 35 comments; 19 regarding the proposed allocations
and 16 on the alternatives. Comments regarding the proposed allocations including impact
on countryside, overlooking, flooding issues, traffic impacts and parking. Specific
representations were also submitted on the amount of care home places in the town, impact
on open space and the impact of development on the listed building at Blamsters Farm.
Objections submitted to development on land east of the High Street due to impact on
historic assets and prominent site and alternative uses suggested such as open space and
heritage centre. Various positions for and against the Halstead bypass were put forward
There was support from developers for alternative sites due to employment land not being
required and objections on wildlife impacts, overlooking, flooding, traffic and parking,
creation of ribbon development. Three new sites for residential development were submitted
as part of the consultation.
Changes Proposed: Amendment to site boundary of HTR6H to exclude footpath. Adjustment
to development boundary along Ashlong Grove. To route of the proposed Halstead bypass
shown as a corridor rather than a specific road proposal route.
Hatfield Peverel
The inset map(s) for Hatfield Peverel received 140 comments. Of these, 107 responded to
the proposed allocations. General comments to on Hatfield Peverel were related to
coalescene with Witham, traffic congestion, facilities cannot cope, impact on wildlife, noise of
A12/railway line, impact on Arla Diary on village and there were specific highways concerns
expressed on both the proposed housing allocations. Petitions were also received against
HAT14H and WIS6 increase in numbers. Support representations were received from
landowners setting out the deliverability, sustainable location, and potential link road from
the sites. There were also some comments on whether the Arla Dairy site should be
protected for employment uses and support for non-allocation of alternative sites.
Two additional sites were submitted for consideration for residential development and one
for industrial/commercial development in Hatfield Peverel.
Changes Proposed: Removal of residential allocation of site HAT14H the Vineyards,
increase in area of site HAT17H, Sorrells Field and addition of structural landscaping, formal
recreation allocation of Cricket ground and adjacent allotments protected. Minor amendment
to local centre boundary
20
Helions Bumpstead
The inset map(s) for Helions Bumpstead received 4 comments; 3 of which responded to the
proposed allocation. The majority of comments sought alternative sites to be included within
the village envelope and as an allocation in the Plan, the inclusion of an allocated
employment site and a site for affordable housing. Objections to allocations surrounded the
demand and need for, and location of, allocated allotments. An additional site at Pale Green
was put forward for inclusion within the development boundary.
Changes Proposed: Amend employment designation of site HEL2E, Pale Green to B1 uses
only. To move the allotment designation from site HEL5Halt to land north of Slate Hall Farm
Kelvedon
The inset map(s) for Kelvedon received 37 comments of which 23 regarded the proposed
allocations. Traffic and parking problems in the village were highlighted along with the
pressure on local services and that employment areas should be provided. Anglian Water
noted concerns on the waste water treatment works capacity and surface water network
capacity. National Grid supported the non-allocation of other sites which could have a
detrimental impact on the rail network. There was some support expressed by developers for
alternative sites and the extension to St Dominics Care Home, however objections were also
submitted to these sites because of impact on landscape, flood zones and character of the
village. An additional site was proposed for residential development.
Lamarsh and Alphamstone
The inset map(s) received one comment regarding alternatives. This supported the rejection
of all allocations due to flooding issues and a loss of amenity.
Nounsley
The inset map(s) for Nounsley received 10 comments of which 4 responded to proposed
allocations and 6 to alternatives. These supported no development outside the village
envelope and requests for both the Sportsman’s Arms PH for residential. The rejection of
alternatives was generally supported on grounds of an unwillingness for Nounsley to
expand, with one objection to include a site for housing. Two additional sites were submitted
through the consultation period for residential development.
Ovington
The inset map(s) for Ovington received 1 comment in regard to an alternative. They
supported the rejection due to impacts on a current dwelling that would be replaced, and
suggested a redrafting of the village envelope boundary should the site become allocated for
this reason.
Panfield
The inset map(s) for Panfield received 4 comments; 2 each to proposed allocations and
alternatives. These comments sought the allocation of a number of Assets of Community
Value, a request that the village envelope is not expanded, and that significant strategic level
growth is already planned for the area. There was one comment that objected to an
alternative site’s rejection.
21
Changes Proposed: To designate the allotment site as such. Show the Thistledown Planning
Field and John Barr Playing Field as formal recreation.
Pebmarsh
The inset map(s) for Pebmarsh received 3 comments of which 2 responded to proposed
allocations. Representations requested development boundaries be amended to include
alternative sites, whilst one comment supported the rejection of the alternatives, and another
stressed that a playing field would be gifted on inclusion allocation of an alternative.
Rayne
The inset map(s) for Rayne received 4 comments of which 3 related to the alternatives.
These supported their rejection due to a loss of allotments, concerns regarding coalescence,
and landscape impacts. There was support for one alternative site to be included as an
allocation for 20 dwellings. Two new sites were submitted for residential development.
Changes Proposed: Amendment of development boundary on School Road to
accommodate existing development.
Ridgewell
The inset map(s) for Ridgewell received 8 comments; 4 of which responded to the proposed
allocations. The majority of these objected to allocations on grounds of perceived impacts on
the Conservation Area, existing housing densities, an Ancient Monument, privacy, wildlife
habitats, trees, safe access, flooding and the potential for contaminated land; however there
was support citing accessibility to services and development on previously developed land.
The rejection of alternatives was supported where issues of land ownership were
highlighted. Three additional sites were submitted for consideration for residential
development.
Changes Proposed: Removed designation of 10 or more dwellings and amend development
boundary around site RID4H, Stambourne Road.
Rivenhall
The inset map(s) for Rivenhall received 7 comments. General comments sought the
designation of numerous additional community uses, footpaths, cycleways and Protected
Lanes. There was support for the rejection of all alternative sites, citing impacts on a
Scheduled Monument, archaeological remains, a Local Wildlife Site and the identity of the
village. Comments also respond to an already significant amount of planned growth in the
area, issues of coalescence, the allocation of similar proposals nearby in Witham and safety
of access to certain sites.
Rivenhall End
The inset map(s) for Rivenhall End received 2 comments on the proposed allocations. These
sought corrections to perceived inaccuracies in some cycleway, Community Use and
informal recreation designations.
Changes Proposed: Removed informal recreation north of village. Removed community use
allocation from Henry Dixon Hall
22
Shalford
The inset map(s) for Shalford received 2 comments; both of which responded to the
alternatives and supported their rejection based on impacts on trees, the suitability of further
housing in the area and the character of the village.
Major Changes: None
Shalford (Church End)
The inset map(s) for Shalford (Church End) received 14 comments; 9 regarding alternatives
and 5 responding to proposed allocations. There was support for some alternatives where
the proposal would enhance the attractiveness of the area and support the primary school.
Further comments supported the rejection of alternatives on ground of removing greenspace
and trees, extending the village envelope, impacts on landscape, flooding issues, wildlife
impacts and also impacts on neighbouring properties.
Changes Proposed: Remove development boundary alteration adjacent to Gables, increase
development boundary adjacent to White Courts and addition of visually important open
space
Sible Hedingham
The inset map(s) for Sible Hedingham received a total of 7 comments of which 5 responded
to proposed allocations. General comments question the designation of Visually Important
Space in one instance and recommend the additional designation of spaces and Community
Woodlands and Orchards in others. They also state that the Village Envelope should not be
amended, seek the allocation of a business and leisure use on one site and identify
significant infrastructure improvements that would be needed to accommodate new
development. Comments were also received supporting new growth, particularly at allocated
sites for mixed-use development. One comment responded to housing being more suitable
on an allocated employment site. The rejection of alternative sites was generally supported
due to being outside the Village Envelope and impacts on the Conservation Area.
Changes Proposed: To allocate Mollys Wood as a community woodland/orchard. To allocate
visually important open space between Swan Street and Grays Hall Meadow
Silver End
The inset map(s) for Silver End received 6 comments; 3 each to the proposed allocations
and alternatives. General comments were received regarding a need for further parking
provision with sites suggested. The allocations map received objection regarding impacts on
housing density, the demolition of existing buildings, difficulties obtaining finance for the
development and issues regarding deliverability. The alternatives map received objections
regarding alternatives for housing, that the site is well screened, is partially previously
developed and has suitable access including to sustainable transport. Contrary to this,
support for the rejection noted issues regarding safe access, flooding and development into
the countryside.
Changes Proposed: Environmental Improvement areas added to Valentine Way and School
Road and identify allotments off Joseph Gardens.
Steeple Bumpstead
The inset map(s) for Steeple Bumpstead received 6 comments. These stated that the
proposed allocation is partly within a Conservation Area, would have landscape impacts if
developed, and has access difficulties. Conversely, comments were received that praised
the suitability, deliverability and logical location of the allocation. The rejection of alternative
23
sites was objected to; noting benefits to parking, the provision of affordable housing and
deliverability.
Changes Proposed: Amend development boundary at rear of Blois Meadow to reflect
employment designation
Stisted
The inset map(s) for Stisted received 2 comments; 1 each for allocations and alternatives,
and 127 separate comments on the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site at Twin Oaks.
Objections on the site at Twin Oaks regarded the illegal use of the site, convenience for the
Council, cost, concentration of pitches in a single area, sites should be in public ownership,
smaller sites should be preferred, impact on local residents and infrastructure, access and
highway safety, illegal activities on/adjacent to site. Support for the allocation was received
from the agent representing the site regarding policy and pitch delivery and a suitable
location.
Comments on Stisted village were an objection to visually important space at Sarcel and
support for non-allocation of an alternative site in the village.
Changes Proposed: Removal of visually important open space designation at Sarcel.
Sturmer East
The inset map(s) for Sturmer East received 2 comments regarding the alternatives map.
These objected to the rejection of a site citing its capability to meet local housing needs. An
additional site was submitted for consideration for residential development.
Toppesfield
No comments were received on the Plan, however two additional sites were submitted for
residential development which generated significant public objections following the closure of
the consultation period.
Wethersfield and Blackmore End
No comments were received on the map(s) for Weathersfield, and Blackmore End received
1 comment stating that the two village envelopes are drawn in a manner that restricts infill
development. In Blackmore End, two additional sites were submitted as extensions to the
development boundary.
Wickham St Paul
The inset map(s) for Wickham St Paul received 1 comment responding to the alternatives
map. This sought the allocation of an alternative site on the grounds that it would provide
housing in a sustainable location with a good level of local services.
Witham
The inset map(s) for Witham received 114 comments. Of these, 83 responded to proposed
allocations and 31 responded to the alternatives. Regarding WCH2Halt there was support
for its designation as visually important open space due to its valuable contribution, close to
existing open space and impact on wildlife site. A petition supporting this allocation was
received. Comments from the land owner related to number of dwellings in Witham,
24
sustainable location, community benefits, most of site is hidden from view so cannot be
visually important. A number of responses were on site WIS6 regarding the impact of
increasing density, distance from facilities and coalescence with Hatfield Peverel. The
developer objected to the phasing of the site but set out the density would be appropriate.
ECC supported the increase as this would more easily support a new primary school.
Representations on other allocated sites in the town regarded access, congestion and
parking, drainage, impact on landscape and wildlife, need for community facilities, sewerage,
already being used as for retail and need for access road to Morrisons. Representations
received from land owners of alternative sites included the allocation for car parking not
justified, harm historic setting, overdevelopment and adjacent to the development boundary.
Objection received on allocating visually important open space within housing estates in
Witham as could restrict infill development.
Changes Proposed: Removed the proposed access road for site WIW1H, land at Teigh
Drive and the structural landscaping adjacent to Blunts Hall Road. Allocate site WCH27H,
the old Magistrates Court, as a residential site of 10 or more. To allocate Visually Important
Open Space on Newland Street adjacent to site WCH27H. Allocated site WIS10H, Ivy
Chimneys as a residential site of 10 or more and allocate visually important open space on
Hatfield Road adjacent to the site. Amendment to the primary shopping area in Witham
Settlements that received no comments
The following settlements’ maps did not instigate any representations at public engagement:,
Belchamp Walter, Bradwell, Little Maplestead, Little Yeldham, Stambourne Chapel End
Way, Stambourne Dyers End, Terling, Tilbury Juxta Clare and White Notley.
Landscape Character Areas
There were no comments received specifically on the Landscape Character Areas and no
changes are proposed.
25
Statement of Consultation
Part 1 Regulation 18 Consultation
on the Site Allocations and
Appendix
Braintree District Council
January 2014
Official Use only
Rep Number
Representation Form for Consultation on the Site Allocations and
Responses to the consultation on the draft Site Allocations and Development
Management Plan are encouraged via the Council’s online consultation system
available on the website. However this form can be returned electronically, or in
hard copy if preferred. All responses must be sent to
[email protected] or Planning Policy, Causeway House, Bocking
End, Braintree CM7 9HB and received by 5pm on Friday 22nd February 2013.
Please read the accompanying guidance notes before completing this form.
If you wish to submit a new site for consideration which has not already been
included in either the Core Strategy or Site Allocations process, please fill in a
site submission form (also available on the website) and return to the same
address.
If an agent has been appointed to act on your behalf please also fill in the
agent’s details below.
Personal Details
Title
Name
Organisation (if applicable)
Telephone Number
Email Address
Postal Address
Postcode
Agents Details (if applicable)
Title
Name
Organisation
Telephone Number
Email Address
Postal Address
Postcode
Please note that your representations will be available for public inspection and viewable on the
website. Please provide your name and address as anonymous comments will not be
considered. However to reduce the risk of identity fraud do not sign letters or forms with a
signature. The Council reserves the right not to publish or take into account any representations
which are openly offensive or defamatory.
1. To which part of the Site Allocations and Development Management Document
is your comment referring?
(Please write in policy or paragraph number or site reference number and map number as set
out in the accompanying guidance notes).
2. Is your comment;
• Supporting the draft plan?
• Objecting to the draft plan?
• Commenting on the draft plan?
3. Please set out your comments below
(additional pages may be attached if required but if you are intending to submit a separate
document which details your responses please summarise your comments in relation to the
specific part of the document set out in question 1)
4. Please set out any changes to the document that you think are necessary
Monitoring Information
Please complete the monitoring form and return it with your representation. This
allows us to monitor which groups are participating in the Local Development
Framework process and which may need further support. The data will be
detached from your representation and separated from any other information
that could link it to you.
Gender
Female
Male
Transgender
Prefer not to say
Age
17 and under
18 – 29
30 - 44
45 – 59
60 – 74
75 and over
Prefer not to say
Do you have a disability?
Yes
No
Prefer not to say
Ethnic Origin
White – British
White – Irish
White – Other
Mixed – White and Black Caribbean
Mixed – White and Black African
Mixed – White and Asian
Mixed Other
Asian or Asian British – Indian
Asian or Asian British – Pakistani
Asian or Asian British – Bangladeshi
Asian or Asian British - Other
Black or Black British – Caribbean
Black or Black British – African
Black or Black British – Other
Chinese
Prefer not to say
Any other ethnic group, please
specify below
Guidance Notes for Responses to the Draft Site Allocations and Development
Management Plan Consultation January and February 2013.
Please read these guidance notes before submitting your representations.
The draft Site Allocations and Development Management Plan (together with a
Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment) has been
published for a 6 week public consultation period. The Council is inviting
responses and comments on the draft document, before a final version of the
document, known as the Submission Draft, is published later in the year and
submitted to a Planning Inspector for examination.
The document can be seen in full on the Council’s website and a paper copy is
available to view at the Council’s main office at Causeway House in Braintree
and at the libraries in Braintree and Witham. Copies of the document on CD are
also held at the other libraries in the District during normal opening hours.
Copies of the document on CD can be purchased from the Council at a cost of
£10. The supporting documents and evidence base prepared in support of this
document are available on the website and copies of specific documents on CD
can be purchased if required.
As this is a draft plan, it sets out the Council’s preferred approach to the
document and also the reasonable alternatives which have been considered by
the Council in the formulation of the document. The Council would welcome
your comments on the preferred approach and also on whether you think the
Council was right in not supporting the alternative options which are set out.
You can also suggest new options and allocations if you believe they are
reasonable, which have not yet been considered.
The Plan contains a series of land allocation policies and maps which show the
proposed development boundaries and draft land allocations for each of the
Towns, Villages and Industrial areas in the District for:
• Housing developments of 10 dwellings or more
• Land which will be used for employment
• Open space and land set aside for recreation and allotments
• Land for retail development and boundaries for town centres and primary
shopping areas
• Land for community uses, education or cemetery/churchyards
The maps also show information on Conservation Areas, Mineral Safeguarding
areas and designated sites such as Local Wildlife Sites, Sites of Special
Scientific Interest and Ancient Monuments. Areas outside of development
boundaries are classed as countryside and are shown on the Proposals Map.
In this draft document there are usually two maps for each settlement with a
development boundary where alternatives have been submitted.
The first shows the Council’s preferred option and proposed allocations for the
settlement.
The second map (where applicable) shows sites which were suggested by
landowners or their agents for development of any kind. Most of these sites
have not been included by the Council as preferred option development sites.
You are invited to comment upon the Council’s preferred option and on whether
you support any of the alternative sites.
All the sites have a specific reference number which is shown on the maps and
which should be used in question 1 on the response form to identify which site
you are commenting on.
On the draft site allocation plan this reference number is made up of;
The prefix for that area e.g. KEL for Kelvedon or FEE for Feering;
A number; and
A letter which denotes what the site has been allocated for e.g. H for Housing, E
for Employment.
So for example the full reference would be KEL8E
On the alternatives draft site allocation plan the reference number is made up
of;
A prefix and number as set out above;
A letter which denotes what the site has been allocated or put forward for consideration for; and
ALT which denotes it as an alternative site or site use.
So for example the full reference would be FEE4HALT
The Development Management Policies will apply across the whole District,
once approved and are used by the Council when deciding whether to approve
planning applications. The policies are separated into 8 chapters which deal
with;
-
Housing
Employment
-
Retail
-
Transport
-
Design Conservation and Listed Buildings
Environment
-
Sport and Recreation
-
Community Facilities
Each gives more detail and local context to the Government’s guidance set out
in the National Planning Policy Framework, and the strategic policies already
approved as part of the Core Strategy.
The policies provide criteria against which all types of large and small planning
applications are assessed and form the basis of our approval or rejection of
those applications. Each policy is numbered and begins with the prefix ADM.
This draft document also suggests reasonable alternative policies or
approaches which have been considered. In some cases no reasonable
alternative options were identified and this is set out. Each alternative policy has
a paragraph number and this should be quoted when commenting on the
option.
The Council would encourage all responses to be made through the Council’s
online consultation system which is available on the website or by following this
link http://braintree-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/. In order to submit your
comments, if you are not already registered, you will need to click on
login/register and then follow the links to register as a consultee. It is necessary
to provide a valid email address to use the system. Please remember your
username and password as you will need this to access the system.
The online system will allow you to click on each map, policy or paragraph and
comment directly upon it. However a response form is also available on the
website and in hard copy as requested, which can be filled in and submitted
online or via the post. Both the online consultation system and the response
form require answers to the same questions.
A separate representation form is required to be submitted for each
representation where it relates to a different policy, paragraph, map or site.
If you wish to submit a new site which has not yet been considered through the
Site Allocations or Core Strategy processes you should download and return the
site submission form which is available on the Council’s website. Alternatively
this can be found on the online consultation system at the start of the Draft
Proposals and Inset Maps section. This asks for details of the site which you
wish to be considered, including a map/s of the site and what you wish the land
to be considered for e.g. housing or employment. The site submission form and
all accompanying maps and information must be received by the 22nd February.
Guidance on how to fill in each question of your representation form is set out
below
Contact Details
Please fill in your full contact details in the spaces provided. Representations
which are submitted without a valid name or address cannot be accepted.
Please supply an email address if you have one as it will allow us to contact you
electronically. All representations will be published in full on our website but
address and contact details of individuals will be removed (only the name will be
included).
Everyone who submits a representation will be added to our consultation
database (if not already included) in order that we may keep you updated on the
progress of the plan. If you do not wish to be contacted please state this clearly
on the form.
If an agent or consultant has been engaged to act on your behalf please fill in
only your name then the agent’s details in full. All correspondence will then be
sent directly to the agent, unless otherwise specified clearly on the form. If you
are a landowner with an agent acting on your behalf please ensure that your
agent knows the site name and reference number which your site has been
given.
Please note that your representations will be available for public inspection and
viewable on the website. Please provide your name and address as anonymous
comments will not be considered. However to reduce the risk of identity fraud do
not sign letters or forms with a signature. The Council reserves the right not to
publish or take into account any representations which are openly offensive or
defamatory
Question 1: To which part of the Site Allocations and Development
Management Document is your comment referring?
If your comment is relating to a paragraph or policy please write the number in
the box (e.g. para 4.32 or ADM5).
If your representation relates to an alternative option to a policy please state the
paragraph number in which the alternative is considered.
However if you are suggesting an alternative option for a policy which has not
yet been considered please write in the policy number of the preferred policy. If
you wish to suggest a whole new policy area for example a policy on houses of
multiple occupation please put the chapter number you think the policy would
fall under.
If you are commenting on a map as a whole, the development boundary
proposed for the area or an area which has not been considered for
development, please put the Map Inset Number (found in the top right hand
corner of each map). If you wish to comment on a specific site, either preferred
or alternative please use the site reference number as shown on the map (and
discussed in more detail on the previous page).
Question 2: Is your comment
• Supporting the draft plan?
• Objecting to the draft plan?
• Commenting on the draft plan?
Please tick in the relevant box as to whether you consider your representation
supports the Council’s preferred approach, objects or disagrees with the
Council’s preferred approach (i.e. supports one of the alternative options
identified or is suggesting a further alternative) or if you are commenting on the
plan (neither objecting or supporting)
Question 3: Please set out your comments below
Please set out in detail, your comments relating to the specific paragraph,
policy, map or site that you have specified in question 1. Please use further
sheets if required. Whilst not encouraged if you are submitting a separate
document detailing your representations please complete a summary of the
comments in this box. Please also send 2 hard copies and an electronic version
of this document to the Council.
Question 4: Please set out any changes to the document that you think
are necessary
If you are not supportive of the Council’s preferred approach as set out in the
document please use this space to clearly set out what changes you want made
to the plan to make it acceptable. This could include new wording to policies or
paragraphs, changes to development boundaries or different or new sites being
allocated for development. Please use additional sheets if required.
Please fill in the monitoring information to help the Council to monitor which
groups are participating in the Local Development Framework process and
which may need further support. The data will be detached from your
representation and separated from any other information that could link it to you.
If you have any questions about filling in the representation form please contact
planning policy at Braintree District Council on
Telephone 01376 551414 ext 2567
Email [email protected]
Planning Policy
Causeway House
Bocking End
Braintree
CM7 9HB
All representations must be received by no later than 5pm on Friday 22nd
February.
Our ref:
Your ref:
Ask for:
Dial:
Ext:
Date:
Planning Policy
01376 551414
2567
9th January 2013
Causeway House
Braintree
Essex CM7 9HB
Tel: 01376 552525
Fax 01376 557787
www.braintree.gov.uk
Public Consultation on the Braintree District Council Draft Site Allocations and
Development Management Plan and Sustainability Appraisal /Strategic Environmental
Assessment (SA/SEA) and on the draft Revised Statement of Community Involvement .
I am writing to inform you that the Council is preparing a Site Allocations and Development
Management Plan and has published a draft Plan for a period of six weeks public consultation,
commencing on 10th January 2013. This Plan sets out proposed areas for development in the
District up to 2026. It accompanies and supports the strategic development proposals in the
Core Strategy approved in 2011. The Council would welcome your views on the draft proposals
and representations about what a plan with that subject ought to contain. The Council is also
publishing a Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment,
which
accompanies the Draft Plan and a Draft Revised Statement of Community Involvement, which
sets out how the Council proposes to consult on planning proposals, upon which comments are
also sought. I enclose a CD which contains the Draft Site Allocations and Development
Management Plan, the draft Revised Statement of Community Involvement and the response
forms and guidance notes. The SA/SEA will be available on the Council’s website in
approximately one weeks time.
The Draft Site Allocations and Development Management Plan sets out land allocations for
future development on maps for each town, village and industrial area in the District, which have
a development boundary. The maps shows the boundary of areas that can be developed.
Outside these areas, land is classed as countryside, which is protected from most development.
The maps identify specific areas of land proposed for;
• New retail development and boundaries for town centres and primary shopping areas
• Land safeguarded for community uses, education or cemetery/churchyards.
As this is a draft document, it contains two maps for most settlements. The first is the Council’s
preferred option for the development boundary and land allocations in the settlement and the
second shows other sites that have been proposed by landowners so far, for consideration for
new development which have not been supported by the Council as part of the draft plan.
Further development sites may also be suggested as part of this public consultation.
Please note that the principle of the strategic growth locations, as well as the regeneration sites
(at Premdor/ Rockways Sible Hedingham and former Crittalls/Finishing Company Silver End)
were approved as part of the Core Strategy document in 2011 and are not part of the current
consultation.
The strategic growth locations are;
NW Braintree off Panfield Lane, Springwood Drive 600 houses and 15ha employment
West of A131 at Great Notley 18.5ha employment area
SW Witham north of Hatfield Road, 600 houses
NE Witham off Forest Rd in Rivenhall Parish 300 houses
The plan contains the draft Development Management policies, which are used by the Council
when deciding whether to approve planning applications. There are over seventy policies in the
document, which deal with issues including; Housing, Employment, Retail, Transport, Design
and Conservation, the Environment, Sport and Recreation and Community Facilities. As this is
a draft document, it also contains alternative approaches or policy wording, which the Council
has considered, but has not selected as its preferred approach.
The Council is seeking your comments not only on the preferred approach but also on the
alternative options which have been suggested. There is also the opportunity to suggest
reasonable alternative options, which you think the Council has not yet considered and to
submit new sites for consideration for development through a site submission form.
The Council is holding a series of public exhibitions where officers from Braintree Council will be
on hand to answer any questions you may have. All exhibitions will have copies of the maps for
all parts of the District available to view.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Tuesday 15th January
Wednesday 16th January
Thursday 17th January
Monday 21st January
Tuesday 22nd January
rd
Wednesday 23 January
th
Thursday 24 January
th
Monday 28 January
th
Wednesday 30 January
st
Thursday 31 January
th
Wednesday 6 February
th
Thursday 7 February
Earls Colne Village Hall 1.30pm – 6.30pm
Witham Public Hall 2.30pm – 7.30pm
Braintree Town Hall 2.30pm – 7.30pm
Great Yeldham Reading Rooms 2.30pm – 7.30pm
Coggeshall Village Hall 2.30pm – 7.30pm
Halstead Queens Hall 2.30pm – 7.30pm
Hatfield Peverel Village Hall 2.30pm – 7.30pm
Sible Hedingham Baptist Church 2.30pm – 7.30pm
Kelvedon Institute 2.30pm – 7.30pm
Silver End Congregational Church 2.30pm – 7.30pm
The document and all the studies, which support it are available on the Council’s website
www.braintree.gov.uk by following the links to planning policy and the LDF.
Hard copies of the plan are available for reference at the Council’s offices at Causeway House
in Braintree and at Braintree and Witham libraries. The plan will be available on CD at other
libraries throughout the District. The CD may be purchased from the Council at a cost of £10
plus postage.
Consultation responses are encouraged directly via the Council’s online consultation system,
which can be accessed from the website. Alternatively a response form is available to download
from the website and in hard copy on request. Please read the accompanying guidance notes
before completing the form.
All responses must be received by 5pm on Friday 22nd February and sent to;
[email protected] or
Planning Policy, Causeway House, Bocking End Braintree CM7 9HB
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us on 01376 551414 and ask for
planning policy or [email protected]
Yours Sincerely
Emma Goodings
For Planning Policy Manager
Our ref:
Your ref:
2061
N/A
Ask for:
Dial:
Ext:
Date:
Planning Policy
01376 551414
2567
9th January 2013
Causeway House
Braintree
Essex CM7 9HB
Tel: 01376 552525
Fax 01376 557787
www.braintree.gov.uk
Dear
Public Consultation on the Braintree District Council Draft Site Allocations and
Development Management Plan and Sustainability Appraisal /Strategic Environmental
Assessment (SA/SEA) and on the draft Revised Statement of Community Involvement .
I am writing to inform you that the Council is preparing a Site Allocations and Development
Management Plan and has therefore published a draft plan for a period of six weeks public
consultation, commencing on 10th January 2013. This Plan sets out proposed areas for
development in the District up to 2026. It accompanies and supports the strategic development
proposals in the Core Strategy approved in 2011. The Council would welcome your views on
the draft proposals and your comments about what a local plan with that subject should contain.
The Council is also publishing a Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental
Assessment, which accompanies the Draft Plan and a Draft Revised Statement of Community
Involvement, which sets out how the Council proposes to consult on planning proposals, upon
which comments are also sought.
The Draft Site Allocations and Development Management Plan sets out land allocations for
future development on maps for each town, village and industrial area in the District, which have
a development boundary. The maps shows the boundary of areas that can be developed.
Outside these areas, land is classed as countryside, which is protected from most development.
The maps identify specific areas of land proposed for;
• New retail development and boundaries for town centres and primary shopping areas
• Land safeguarded for community uses, education or cemetery/churchyards.
As this is a draft document, it contains two maps for most settlements. The first is the Council’s
preferred option for the development boundary and land allocations in the settlement and the
second shows other sites that have been proposed by landowners so far, for consideration for
new development which have not been supported by the Council as part of the draft plan.
Further development sites may also be suggested as part of this public consultation.
Please note that the principle of the strategic growth locations, as well as the regeneration sites
(at Premdor/ Rockways Sible Hedingham and former Crittalls/Finishing Company Silver End)
were approved as part of the Core Strategy document in 2011 and are not part of the current
consultation. The strategic growth locations are;
NW Braintree off Panfield Lane, Springwood Drive 600 houses and 15ha employment
West of A131 at Great Notley 18.5ha employment area
SW Witham north of Hatfield Road, 600 houses
NE Witham off Forest Rd in Rivenhall Parish 300 houses
The plan contains the draft Development Management policies, which are used by the Council
when deciding whether to approve planning applications. There are over seventy policies in the
document, which deal with issues including; Housing, Employment, Retail, Transport, Design
and Conservation, the Environment, Sport and Recreation and Community Facilities. As this is
a draft document, it also contains alternative approaches or policy wording, which the Council
has considered, but has not selected as its preferred approach.
The Council is seeking your comments not only on the preferred approach, but also on the
alternative options which have been suggested. There is also the opportunity to suggest
reasonable alternative options, which you think the Council has not yet considered and to
submit new sites for consideration for development through a site submission form.
The Council is holding a series of public exhibitions where officers from Braintree Council will be
on hand to answer any questions you may have. All exhibitions will have copies of the maps for
all parts of the District available to view.
•
Tuesday 15th January
Earls Colne Village Hall 1.30pm – 6.30pm
•
Wednesday 16th January Witham Public Hall 2.30pm – 7.30pm
•
Thursday 17th January
st
•
Monday 21 January
nd
•
Tuesday 22 January
rd
•
Wednesday 23 January Great Yeldham Reading Rooms 2.30pm – 7.30pm
th
•
Thursday 24 January
Coggeshall Village Hall 2.30pm – 7.30pm
th
•
Monday 28 January
Halstead Queens Hall 2.30pm – 7.30pm
•
Wednesday 30th January Hatfield Peverel Village Hall 2.30pm – 7.30pm
•
Thursday 31st January
Sible Hedingham Baptist Church 2.30pm – 7.30pm
•
Wednesday 6th February Kelvedon Institute 2.30pm – 7.30pm
•
Thursday 7th February
Silver End Congregational Church 2.30pm – 7.30pm
The document and all the studies, which support it are available on the Council’s website
www.braintree.gov.uk by following the links to planning policy and the LDF.
Hard copies of the plan are available for reference at the Council’s offices at Causeway House
in Braintree and at Braintree and Witham libraries. The plan will be available on CD at other
libraries throughout the District. The CD may be purchased from the Council at a cost of £10
plus postage.
Consultation responses are encouraged directly via the Council’s online consultation system,
which can be accessed from the website. Alternatively a response form is available to download
from the website and in hard copy on request. Please read the accompanying guidance notes
before completing the form.
All responses must be received by 5pm on Friday 22nd February and sent to;
[email protected] or
Planning Policy, Causeway House, Bocking End, Braintree CM7 9HB
You have been sent this letter, as you have asked to be placed on the database, are a
landowner who has submitted a site, or has previously commented on a planning document
such as the Core Strategy. If you do not wish to continue to receive these correspondences in
the future, please let us know at the contact details above. Alternatively if you wish to receive
these notifications by email please provide us with an email address.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us on 01376 551414 and ask for
planning policy or [email protected]
Yours Sincerely
For Planning Policy Manager
A.P.T.
Ancer Spa (Midlands) Ltd
Anglian Water Services Ltd
Arqiva
Atkins Telecom
Babergh District Council
Boreham Parish Council
Braintree Association of Local Councils
Braintree Fire Station
British Gas Connections Ltd
British Telecom
British Telecom
BT
Bures St Mary Parish Council
Cambridgeshire County Council
Castle Camps Parish Council
Cavendish Parish Council
Chappel Parish Council
Chelmsford City Council
Clare Parish Council
Colchester Borough Council
Connect (Quadrant Pipelines Ltd &
Independent Pipelines Ltd)
Constituency Office
Copford & Easthorpe Parish Council
Department for Education & Skills
Department for Transport
East of England Development Agency
East of England LGA
East of England LGA
East of England Strategic Health Authority
English Heritage
Environment Agency
EPN South Highway services
ES Pipelines Ltd
Essex & Suffolk Water
Essex Ambulance Service
Essex County Council
Essex Fire & Rescue Service
Essex Police
Essex Police
Felsted Parish Council
G.T.C.
Glemsford Parish Council
Great & Little Leighs Parish Council
Great Braxted Parish Council
Great Cornard Parish Council
Great Sampford Parish Council
Great Waltham Parish Council
Haverhill Town Council
Highways Agency
Home Builders Federation
Homes and Communities Agency
Homes and Communities Agency
Housing Corporation
Hutchinson 3G
Kedington Parish Council
Langford & Ulting Parish Clerk
Lindsell Parish Council
Little Baddow Parish Council
Little Bardfield Parish Council
Little Braxted Parish Council
Little Cornard Parish Council
Little Waltham Parish Council
Long Melford Parish Council
Maldon District Council
Marks Tey Parish Council
Messing Cum Inword Parish Council
Mobile Operators Association
Mount Bures Parish Council
Mowlem Energy Ltd
National Grid
Natural England
One2One
Orange
Passenger Focus
Saffron Walden Constituency
South Cambridgeshire District Council
Sport England, Eastern Region
St Edmundsbury Borough Council
Stebbing Parish Council
Stoke by Clare Parish Council
Suffolk County Council
Taxi Association
Technical Director
The National Trust
The Planning Inspectorate
Tiptree Parish Council
T-Mobile (UK) Ltd
Uttlesford District Council
Virgin Media
Vodafone
Wakes Colne Parish Council
Wixoe Parish Council
Mr D R Miller
Mr David Galley
Mr Roger Odell
Mr Michael Hargreaves
Mr George Ellis
Mr Steve Arthur Mason
Mr Robin Pleasance
Mr Rob Dobson
Ms Jan Gardner
Mr Mark Hidge
Mrs Diana Jacobs
Mr Ken Wiltshire
Annie Gordon
Messrs Jack and Guy Agazarian
Mr gerry johnson
Mr Chris Howard
Mr Graham Went
Mrs Jane Sexton
Mr Paul Mitchell
Mr Greg Howell
Mr Jeremy White
Mr and Mrs Lily and Bruce Vickers
Mr Matt Lee
Ms Emma Ousbey
Cllr Tom Cunningham
Cllr Stephen Canning
Cllr Miss Vanessa Santomauro
Cllr Robert Wright
Cllr Mrs Collette Gibson
Cllr Ms Lyn Walters
Cllr Chris Cadman
Cllr Mrs Susan Wilson
Cllr Mrs Julia Allen
Cllr Stephen Kirby
Cllr Mrs Jennifer Sutton
Cllr Derrick Louis
Cllr Hylton Johnson
Cllr Peter Tattersley
Cllr Julian Swift
Cllr Philip Barlow
Cllr Mrs Corinne Thompson
Cllr Patrick Horner
Cllr Mrs Cheryl Louis
Cllr William Rose
Cllr Mrs Iona Parker
Mrs Brenda Baker
Mr Richard Ford
Ms Angela Lock
Mr Jim Bailey
Ms Sharon Smith
Ms Loraine Kelly
Mr Mark Merchant
Mrs R Lawes
MRS TINA HODGE
MRS TINA HODGE
Georgina Challis
Mr Paul White
Ms Donna Marino
Mr David Barker
Mr David Lewis
Ms Emma Deighan
Mr Christopher Warder Smith
Ms Verity MacMahon
NATS
Mr Sam Mott
Kathleen Ford
Janet Mizzen
Marjorie Timms
J G Nicholls
Mr & Mrs Barber
Sally Pulfer
Mr David Flood
Mrs Linda Sadler
M Bates
Mr & Mrs Root
Jean Frost
K R Wheeler
Mr Brian Frost
Iris Blackery
B H Johnson
Dorothy Fraser
Mr Eric R Childs
Flo Greeves
Marion Hills
L E Brown
Mr & Mrs Lunn
Mr John Chapman
Gladys Freswater
Mr & Mrs Muffett
Iris Calvo
Mr & Mrs Cooper-Cocks
Mr David Stevens
Mrs W Miller
Mrs Joyce Hall
Mary Smith
Lord A E Cann
Mr Albert Dowdall
E M Layer
Mr Robert Shaw
Mr & Mrs Heath
Mr & Mrs Green
Debbie Page
R Hume
Phil
Mr & Mrs Richardson
Mr George Devall
Mr Joe Davies
Maltings Academy
J E Fox
Mr John Irving
Mr B Miller
Ms Suzanne Emery
Mr Alexander Brady
Ms Anne Wiles
Christina Squibb
Willcock
deadline
Mr P E Pawsey
Mr Alvar Digby
Mr Peter Williams
Mr Gerald Wisby
A M Stimpson
Mrs Jenny Claydon
Mrs G Warner
Mr David Edwards
Mr Neil Dinwiddie
Mr Chris Hunnable
Mrs J Oliver
Mr Steve Landridge
Mr Ben Allen
Mr Mark Norman
Dr Caroline Davies
Mrs Doris Gowers
Mrs Margaret Drysdale
Miss Ilinca Diaconescu
Mr Edward Keymer
Mr David Broddle
Mr Richard Foulsd
Mr Steve Langridge
Mr Duncan Perry
Susanne Chung
Mr Richard Playle
Kelly Weeks
Dr Annie Gordon
Mr Stuart Grout
Natalie Drewett
Mr Robin Carpenter
Teresa O'Connor
Mr Crispin Downs
Sandra Bissett
Mr Page
Mr Timothy Knight
Mr Paul Mcqueen
mr robert tappin
Mr Michael Eley
Mr Tony Bradley
mr david house
MR DONALD MCWATT
Mr Richard Gray
mrs julie mahoney
Mrs Catherine Irving
Mrs Susan Held
Mr Wright
Mr John Irving
Mr Kevin Faulkner
Miss Ilinca Diaconescu
Mr Andrew Fairbairn
Cllr Lynette Bowers-Flint
Cllr Martin Green
Cllr Francesco Ricci
Mrs Sherry Webb
Mr Mike Lambert
Mr Robert Gardiner
Mr Andrew Martin
Mr Peter Sullivan
sarah kirk
Mrs Sheila Fullbrook
mr Matthew Lee
Mrs J Elfes
Mrs Rosa Etherington
Dawn Brailsford
Ms Patricia Nutt
Mr Jack Parish
Systemafter Ltd
Construct Reason Ltd & Mr D Jones
TLC Care Homes Ltd
Braintree South Alliance
Mrs Fiona Waugh
Royal Masonic Benevolent Institution
Franciscan Sisters
C F E Hill
Trustees of St Mary's Field,
Redding Park Development Company
Barratt Homes (Eastern Counties)
E Hobbs (Farms) Ltd
W G Developments
Flitchway Settlement
Mr A Bonnett
Woodland Group
Forwarding Investment Properties
Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd
Bellway Homes & The Raven Group
James Development Company Ltd
Mr Gordon Fulcher
G Fulcher & Morray Engineering
Mr D'arcy
East of England CoOperative Society
Mrs P Hennessey
Mr R Turpin
Mr and Mrs M Gerhart
Mr Courtauld
Franciscan Sisters
Mr GVS Nott
Mr J Nott
Mrs Grimwood-King
JWS Wright and Sons
Mr T Barker
Bloor Homes
Mr Michael Austin and family
Trustees of JSG Pelly
Vellacott
Gooding & Ashby - Witten
Mr Stephen Walsh
Mr J Melia
McDonnell Mohan Ltd
BHC
Mr D Smith
Crest Strategic Projects Ltd
Essex Fire & Rescue Service
CML Micro & Chelmsford Diocese BofF
Mr Richard Hatch
Lanswood Ltd
West Register (Realisations)
Mr & Mrs Weekes
ASDA Stores Ltd
West Tey Consortium
Mr Martin Scott
Aubries Estates
Mr Christopher Warder Smith
Mrs Ann Sparks
Mrs Barbara Skeggs
Mr & Mrs Tubbs
Sorrells Field
CWO Parker
Mr Ian Yates
Mr Debruin
RWH PROPERTIES
Booth Charities
Mr & Mrs Jaggard-legerton
Hunt Property Trust
Mapley Steps Ltd
Mr Neil Cowburn
Mrs M Wilson & Mrs E Backhouse
Royal Mail
Teign Drive Residents
Mr Dan Hallett
Mr Roy Warren
J Mycroft
Mr D Webber
Messrs Baines & Harman
Mr Philip Whittome
Mr Rob Weston
Mr M Wilkes
Mr B Williamson
D&G Wilson
Mr J Abbott
Mr B Fleet
Margaret Robins
Mr & Mrs C Wood
Mrs A Wright
Mr I Yeldham
Rachel Patterson
Diane Bowyer
Mr Dave Hodgson
Mr A Stevens
Mr Matthew Morton
Mr David Oakley
Mrs Rita Churcher
Mr Peter Smith
Abigail Dodds
Mr C I Marsden
Mr D Clark
Mr J Gallant
Mr Clinton Riley
Mr I Yates
Mrs J Cole
Mr R Steward
Mr S Brice
Mr E Isbell
Miss T A Scanlan
Mr C Aldous
Colchester Gay Switchboard
Mr Anthony Raftery
Mr Donald Kenneth Lindsell
Mr & Mrs Terence & Muriel Larkin
Cllr John O'Reilly-Cicconi
Mr Alan Gray
Mr Robert Frank Thoday
Mrs Maureen Wallace
Mr James Howe
Mr A Hasib
Mr Michael Sewell
Ms Lynn Williams
Mr John Watson
Mr Michael Hawes
Mrs Vera Batkins
Mr Peter Champion
Mrs Janet Shepherd
Mrs Robson
Mrs Karen Skinner
Mr Derek Pluckrose
Mrs Ruby Goodwin
Mr Peter Candler
Mr Alan Reed
Mr Tony Chadwick
Mr Martin Geoffrey Hammond
Mr John Andrews
Mr Stephen Bezzant
Mr Robert Isted
Mrs Judith Slater
Mr Terence Boreham
Mr Ian Wood
Mr Peter Francis Bransby-Zachary
Ms Avril Hodgkins
Mr Norman Rose
Mr Barry Ludlam
Mrs Joan Sturgis
Mrs Irene Everett
Mr Julian Hunnable
Mr Michael Morgan
Mr Neil Taylor
Mrs Mary Joslin
Marsh Properties & Services Ltd
Mr Ivan Sutton
Mrs Georgina Wade
Mrs Kay Bradshaw
Mr Patrick Bones
Mrs Sandra Doe
Mr Robert Marshall
Mr & Mrs Gary & Sandra Turbard
Mr Terence Rowland
E. W KING & CO LTD
Mr A T B George
Mrs J Leech
Mr Victor Rogers
Mr William Bright
Mr R P Jordan
Ms Joan Noble
Mrs Renee Hockley-Byam
Mrs Desdra Leitch
Mr Barry Gibson
Mr Mick Ruszkiewicz
Miss Lorraine Pretty
Mrs Sylvia Ely
Miss Caroline Lewin
Mr Eric Noakes
Mr Martin Gibbs
Mrs Daphne Ellen Parris
Mr Henry Bishop
Mr Wells
Mrs Angela Riley
Mrs Linda White
Mr & Mrs Peter & Vicky Lynn Murs
Mrs L I Frost
Mr Richard Warren
Mrs Joan Clarke
Mr Paul Wright
Mr William Blaxland
Mrs Elizabeth Mackenzie
Mrs Bridget Couch
Mr & Mrs Leonard & Helen Gray
Mr Alan Richard Rutland
Mr Brian Willey
Mr Raymond Harris
Mr Derek Lotery
Mr Ian Weatherley
Mr Neil McLelland
Mr Dennis Little
Miss Kate Jackson
Mrs Wendy Lee
Mrs Linda Heyman
Mr Ross Allen
Mr Brian Pereira
Mr Paul Parmenter
Miss Sue Burden
Mr Andrew Wood
Mrs Sandra Miller
Mr & Mrs C & J Thompson
Ms Grace Bryers
Mrs Sally Barron
Mrs Christine Othen
Mr David Williams
Mr Roger Browning
Mr & Mrs Trevor & Linzi Williams
Mr Keith Pook
Mr Ian Peaty
Mr Roger Duffin
Mr Roy Cox
Mrs Anne Balfour
Mr John Clough
Mr Douglas Martin
Mr R Patel
Mr Peter Sale
Mr Nigel Brown
Mr Tim Malyon
Mrs D J Pickford
Mr Andrew Waddell
Mr Christopher Cater
Mr Geoff Shaw
Mr Daniel Downes
Mrs Sylvia Abbott
Mrs Janet Mellon
Mr Andrew Bloomfield
BC Mitchams Farms (Burwell Ltd) & Associate Compan
Mr Peter Abbott
Mr & Mrs Main
Hon Thomas Lindsay
Mr & Mrs Andrew & Jean Letham
Mr David Smith
Mrs Claire Darch
Mrs Susan Ireland
Mr Gerald Harold Lancaster
Mr Dennis Buston
Ms Janet Harvey
Mr Chris Nicholas
Mrs Catherine Miriam Gray
Mr & Mrs Farrow
Mr Robert Adam
Mrs Weitz
Mr Peter Long
Mr Ian Ayres
Mrs Julia Sherlock
Mrs Pamela Whelan
Co-operative Group Pension Fund Trustees Ltd
Rosmoyne Ltd
Mr Dan Hallett
Mr Philip Heath-Coleman
Mr Derek Ford
Ms Charlotte Andrews
Mr Edward Leader
B & Q Plc
Mr S Berney
Mr M Halls
Ms Mary Holditch
Mr Sutton
Grove Smith Ltd
Mr Allister Burgess
Mr Ray Banning
Mr Joe Leedham
Mrs J Kenny
Mr James Wicks
Mr Duncan Gray
Mr Herbert Wicks
Mr John Oldham
Mr & Mrs Peterson
Mr Malcolm Hobbs
Mrs H Picknell-Stride
Ms L Potter
Mrs B Reed
Mrs L Riley
Mr Peter Crawley
Mr F V Branwhite
Mrs C Branwhite
Miss R Branwhite
Mr C Shawyer
Mr D Hutton
Braintree College
Mr P Watts
Mr Clive Waites
Mrs J Harvey
Mrs R Fitzpatrick
Mrs R Welch
Mrs E S Mortimer
Mrs W Walker
Mrs J James
Mrs S Giles
Mrs M Miller
Mrs J Clarke
Mrs R Mirecki
Mr G Waters
Miss P Hagan
Miss B Dean
Mrs A Barney
Mrs D Long
Mr J Couves
Mrs M Webster
Mr C James
Mrs A Kelliher
Mr J Smith
Ms A Richardson
Mrs D Bailey
Cllr Roger Walters
Mrs Lynn Watson
Mr Tim Wilkinson
Mr John Collar
Cllr Mrs Wendy Scattergood
Mr Nigel Harley
Mrs Kathie Tearle
Mr Nigel McCrea
Mrs Karen Melville-Ross
Mrs F J Wells
Mrs K Fox
Mrs K Fox
Mrs C Carlisle
Mrs P Potter
Mrs A Crisp
Annette Thorpe
Orange
Hutchinson 3G
Vodafone
One2One
A.P.T.
Mr Angus Goody
c/o Mr Simon Pease
T-Mobile (UK) Ltd
The Communications Manager
The Planning Inspectorate
British Telecom
British Telecom
Atkins Telecom
Virgin Media
Connect (Quadrant Pipelines Ltd & Independent Pipelines Ltd)
G.T.C.
British Gas Connections Ltd
ES Pipelines Ltd
Mowlem Energy Ltd
EPN South Highway services
Mr Holdstock
Mrs Sue King
Mr Mike Bowles
C/o Diane Harding
Network Rail
Mrs Wakefield
Mrs E Vale
Laura Ingles
Mrs M Prime
Mr Roy Kingman
Mr Alan Cutts
Mandy Quinn
Ms C Kaldani
Mr John Boon
Mrs Ann Rolls
Mrs S Bonner
Mr David Ball
Mr & Mrs Pudney
Mr Neil Coughlan
Mrs J Whittle
Joan Smith
Betty Beal
Mrs B O'Hare
M Nunn
Mrs Juliet Walton
Thea Campbell
Mr Simon Churly
Brenda Freshwater
Mr N Harrington
Miss Susan Carlisle
Marianne Hatwell
Miss Valerie Watson
Mrs S Drury
County Manager
Kate Lowry
The Manager
Mr & Mrs G & A Burroughs
Mr Gary Price
Mrs M R Chapman
Mrs M Waring
Pam Cook
Ms Mary Johnson
Colchester Quaker Housing Association
Mr Derek Payne
Community Information Point/Chelmsford Library
Tracy Corcoran
Mrs Jean Murphy
Mrs D Brooks
Mrs Kickols
Mr & Mrs John & Lucille Van Geest Place
Mrs Christine Deal
Mrs Marilyn Clark
Tracey McCormack
Mr P Whitehead
Aderyn Gillett
Barbara Morrison
Disability Essex
Kym Page
Mrs Pauline Marlow
Mrs Jill Lloyd
Farleigh-in-Braintree
Hazel Edridge
Brendan Walsh
Lynne Zwink
Friends of Bocking Windmill
Mrs Shirley Rose
Mrs J Roughton
Annette Leary
Jane Beven
Veronica Harman
Julia Smith
Mrs N Sebastian Dunn
Mrs Brigitte Haig
Mrs Gaby Chick
Mrs Margaret Stewart
Ms Anita Sartain
Mrs K Butler
Christine Barrett
A Joy
Interact
Mr Clive Ramsden
Pat Kent
Mr A F Shelton
Mr K Radley
Ms M Houlding
Mr Matt Matthews
Mr Geoff Pattenden
Mr Hardisty
Mrs C Pegley
Sue Stephens
Mr A Short
Mrs Marina Metson
Chris Jenkinson
Mr David Fremlin
Mr John Parfitt
Karen Collop
Mr Nigel Oldacre
Mr Malcolm Batty
Mr Terry Rockall
Mrs P Harrington
Georgina Rhymes
Susan Clubley
Mr Clive Norris
Jean Simmons
Mrs Lorraine Francis
Ms Jayne Kennedy
Jacqueline Wilson
Mrs Maggie Hughes
RAD (Centre for Deaf People)
Mrs Joyce Bryant
Mr Jeff Dorley
Miss Pilgrim
Jackie Clarke
Mr Colin Strong
Nick Shuttleworth
Ms Diane Harding
Mr John Hillman
Miss Carrie Appleby
The Samaritans
Marie Smith
Peggy Keeble
Karen Berry
Ms Sue Stelfox
Mrs Valerie Goddard
Mrs Shirley Blacketer
Anthea Cooper
Mrs Valerie Ahern
Helen Wilson
Marion Ripper
Mr Jack Norwood
Rosemary Leak
Mr W A Watson
Linda Riley
Mrs Eve Newell
Mrs Lorriane Smith
Mrs Sandra Howell
E Murfitt
Mr T Walker
Mrs Ratnage
Mr P G Conway
Mr Robert Bellehewe
Miss Sue Reichert
Mr A G Shaikh
All Saints & St Marys Rayne & Panfield
Mrs T Ferguson
Rev J Richardson
Rev S Northfield
Rev P Meader
Department for Education & Skills
Rev J E F Jasper
Rev Father J Corbyn
Rev J Hall
Revd J Donaldson
R Harvey
Rev P Grinyer
Rev M Child
J F Williams
Rev C.A.J Jones
Mr K P Taylor
Mr C B Bamforth
Mr P Vaidva
Amog Havajra
Rev N Warner
Christ Church Methodist & United Reform Church
Rev D Thompson
Mr Pearson
Earls Colne Baptist Church
Mr Andrew Knight
Evangelical Church
Rev D E Ivey
Faulkbourne Parish Church
E Healey
Mr C Smith
Halstead Baptist Church
Hatfield Peverel Methodist Church
The Vicar
Mr R Swan
Rev B Arnold
Rev J W R Robinson
Fr Anthony McKentey
Mr C Keen
Mrs A Howard
Mons A Barrow
Father J Farrell
T & S Johnson
Mr D Mann
Rev J Blore
Mrs Jane Coates
Mr Reginald David Meade
Mr John Daldry
Mrs Patricia Sally Cheek
Mr Terence Nicholass
Mr Nicholas Edmonds
Mr Brooks Newmark MP
Mr Martyn Bailey
Mr & Mrs Jemison
Mr Roy Potter
Mr & Mrs Murkowski
Mr Allan McCoan
Mr & Mrs Simpson
Ms Adelaide Taylor
Mr John Ashton
Mr Tony Mead
Mr Britten
Mrs Frances Lindsay
Mrs Sherri Beresford
Mr Colin Bayliss
Mr Walter Petchey
Mr Ian Halliday
Mr & Mrs Cope
Mr Geoff Tipping
Mr Donald Davies
Dr Richard Fordham
Mr Nigel Bolland
Mr Roy Belsham
Mr John Pollard
Mr Anthony Edwards
Mr P Walker
Mr A Bourne
Cllr James Abbott
Mr Philip Barlow
Cllr Mrs J C Beavis
Cllr Elwyn Bishop
Mr Stephen Bolter
Cllr Robert Bolton
Mrs A Balcombe
Kerin Boylan
Mr Barry Broyd
Cllr Graham Butland
Mrs Helen Catley
Mr Roy Cavinder
C F Coughlan
Mr Nigel Edey
W P Edwards
Cllr Dr Robert Evans
Cllr Anthony Everard
Mr David Finch
Cllr John Finbow
Cllr T J W Foster
Mrs Beryl Gage
Mr Michael Gage
Cllr Mrs Margaret Galione
Mr Martin Green
Mr John Gyford
Mr Michael Haslam
Mr Paul Heath
Mr Philip Hughes
Mr Arthur Jenner
Cllr Michael Lager
Mr Michael Lynch
Cllr David Mann
Ms Jacqueline Martin
Mr Alan Millam
Cllr Robert Mitchell
Cllr Lady Patricia Newton
Cllr Mrs Jacqueline Pell
Mr John Pilgrim
Mrs Joy Reekie
Cllr D M Reid
Cllr Douglas Rice
Cllr Mrs Wendy Schmitt
Cllr Anthony Shelton
Cllr Mrs Gabrielle Spray
Cllr Miss Moia Thorogood
Mr Richard Tincknell
Mr Peter Turner
Mr Simon Walsh
Mr R Bucknell
Mrs S Carlisle
Mr Dave Arnott
Mr I Cass
Mr R Cook
Mrs Judy Cuddeford
Mr B A Cutmore
Hunnable Investments Ltd.
Mrs Susan Fuller
Mr & Mrs B.P. & P.C. Edwards
Mr Jeffrey Babbs
Mrs Carol East
Mr Peter Hine
Mrs Carol Braddy
Mr Clive Leslie
Mr Eric Hobbs
Mr Lionel Holmes
Mr Christopher Broadway
Mr Geoff Shaw
Mrs Elizabeth Poole
Mr Peter Fox
Mrs Ann Grice
Mr Robert Crayston
Miss Ann Wood
Mr Saward
Mr Christopher Butler
Mrs Sylvia Craig
Ms Elizabeth Humphrey
Mr Patrick Pawsey
Mr Stephen Morton
Mrs Diane Scillitoe
Mr Roy Cleaver
Mr John Jessop
Mr Simon Birnbaum
Mrs Kathleen Little
Mr George Warner
Mr Anthony Couling
Mr Barry Lewis
Mr & Mrs Dunmore
Mr Simon Attwood
Mr Peter Tydeman
Miss Janet Leng
Ms Cherryl Ardley
Miss Colleen Campany
Mrs Pamela Parish
Ms Ann Garrett
Mr & Mrs Parsley
Mr Mark Bell
Mr Paul Evans
Mr K Grinstead
Mr D Gronland
Mr R Haines
Ms D Hardy
Gen Rowell
Mr K Hughes
Mr Paul Foster
Mr Phil Howorth
Mr Anthony Seabrook
Martin Grant Homes Ltd
Mr Peter Smith
Mr B Day
Mr Nic Rumsey
Mr Paul McCarthy
Mr Richard Hawkes
P Parsons
Rev M Shrubsole
Revd Sharon Mills
Mr T Eccles
Mrs Susan Lees
Mr Bill Gustar
Ancient Monuments Society
The Council for British Archaeology
The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings
The Georgian Group
The Victorian Society
The Twentieth Century Society
Mr Graham Fernandez
IFF (GB) Ltd
Mr S Heading
David Walker Chartered Surveyors
Mr Andrew Hull
Mr Alex Anderson
A D Brown
Mrs Nicki Burton
Mr John Palombi
Mr John Chase
Kirsty Walker
Mr Gwynn Stubbings
Mr Derek Stebbing
Mr Anthony Dawson
Mr A Goody
Mr Doug Kibblewhite
Ms Melanie Jones
Laura Ross
Mr Paul Bird
Essex Wildlife Trust
Mr K Taylor
Community Commander
East of England Strategic Health Authority
Mr Graham Seward
Mr Jack Sweeney
Mr Eric Smith
Agnes Bishop
Mr Malcolm Bryan
Marion Williams
Rev David Dickens
Ms K Mansfield
Mr D Anthony
Mrs G Argue
Ms Brenda Baker
Ms F Bodle
Ms C Bradshaw
Mr D Meechan
Mrs V Hackett
Mr D Forrest
Mr J Brace
Mr A Smith
Mrs J Green
Mrs C Edwards
Mrs J Bartley
Mr A Wright
Mr D Iles
Mr A Richbell
Mr A Horne
Mrs M Disley
Mrs A Daisley
Mr J Baker
Mr C Duncan
Ms M Trappitt
Mr G Olney
Mrs K Roebuck
Mrs A Mitchelson
Mrs A Green
Mr A Jones
Mr P Anderson
Mr J Smith
Mrs M Nicholls
Mr S Young
Miss K McGrory
Miss R Cowles
Mrs M Rumsey
Mr G Pocock
Mrs J Herring
Mrs B Ferland
Mrs S Spittlehouse
Mrs P Smith
Mr Tony Charles
Clare Hutchinson
Lindsey Backster
Mr D Bigg
Janet Brown
Canon John Brown
George Burrows
Robert Carter
Abbi Coldwell
Mrs Lorraine Collins
Mr Lee Crabb
Mr Graham Eavery
Zoe Middleton
Mrs Norma Huxter
Helena Goodwin
Dorothy Lodge
Mr Tim Lucas
Mr J Macgregor
Mr Joshua Marks
Mr Alan Mickley
Ms Leanne Mills
Mr P Mitham
Rachel Parratt
Ms K Radley
Ms Eve Reid
Pat Roberts
Ross Saxton-Davis
Mr Mark Sexton
Mr David Sharp
Mrs Joy Sheppard
Mr Robert Taylor
Mr T Steed
Mr G Stollar
Mr D Sutton
Angela Verghese
Ms P Whitney
Mr Alaba Banjo
Mrs Pamela West
Mrs J Seakins
Ms Aimee Cannon
Mr Jason Lindsay
Eilish Loftus
Mr Chris Papworth
Mr Mike French
Mr Ben Gibson
Mr Gary Duncan
Mrs Sarah Webber
Ms Vilma Walsh
Mrs Anne Taylor
Kate Jennings
Mrs S J Mott
Mr Robert Smith
Messrs Ramsey
Ms Kate Matthews
Mr & Mrs D Jones
Mrs S Threadgold
MoD Police Headquarters
The Inland Waterways Association
Essex Waterways Ltd
Forestry Comission England
Freight Transport Association
Mr Hughie Smith
Help The Aged
Chrys Rampley Rampley
Sue Pennell
Rachel Stone
Ms S Hill
L Vanderberg
Nhi Huynh-Ma
Essex Ambulance Service
Ms N Blaken
Mr Michael Wilks
Mrs B Raybould
Mr Mike Murkin
Mr J F Sheldrake
Mrs J Halfhide
Miss J Simmons
Mrs C Carlisle
Mrs B Temple
Mr A Corder-Birch
Mrs J Turner
Coggeshall PC
Mrs H Waterfield
Mrs F J Wells
Mr D Williams
Ms L Miller
Mrs J Wright
Mrs J Walthew
Mrs J Argent
Mrs S Walker
Mrs A Balcombe
Mr K Butcher
Mrs G Cant
Mr K King
Mr Adrian Corder-Birch
Mr M Letch
Mrs D Hilliard
Mrs K Berry
Mrs J Eady
Mrs Lynn Exley
Mr A Evans
Mrs C Hamp
Mr M Squire
Mrs V Holmes
Ms J Dawson
Mr R Bradshaw
Mrs A Jolley
Mrs V Burrows
Mr P Baxter
Mrs J Beavis
Mr D Porth
Cllr J Pike
Cllr D Louis
Mrs Helen Cook
Mrs Denise Humphries
Mr Roger Bradhsaw
Mr L Broadhurst
Ms Carolyn McSweeney
Coggeshall Heritage Society
Mr A Waight
Mr Lyndon Hopkins
Head of Humanities Department
Mrs Hewes
Data Capture Assistant
Director
Railtrack Property (Town Planning)
Fund-raiser
Garden History Society
Mr Mike Benner
Mr S Kirby
Mrs J Cole
Mr D Huxter
Mr T Steel
Mrs Petra Ward
Mr D Whipps
Mr M Leslie
The RSPB
Fields in Trust
Mrs J Beavis
Mrs H Fraser
Diane Jacob
Mrs J Clemo
Mrs P O Player
Miss S E Mann
Mrs Teresa Ulrich
Mrs L Rowe
Mr I P Bradley
Mrs Jessica Dawson
Mr Colin Robertshaw
Mr Roger Upward
Mr P J Watson
Mrs S Parker
Mrs R Leeder
Mrs B Fry
Mrs L White
Dr B Yallop
Mrs D George
Mr M Fitt
Mr J Quick
Mr Gordon Mussett
Mr Will Austin
Mrs T Nicholl
Mr Chris Turner
Ms M Farrant
Mrs Claire Ebeling
Mr Chris Turner
Mr Rich Cooke
Ms Karen Syrett
Mr Derek Lawrence
Mr Stewart Patience
Mr Paul Morris
Carol Horlock
K Adams
Mr Henry Aldridge
Mr Ernest Andrews
Ms. H Archibald
D. K Athanasiadis
S Attenborrow
Mrs J Ball
Mr Banyard
Mr David Barclay
A P Bulpin
Mr P T Tyrie
Mr Paul Foster
Jamie Kemp
Mr P Baxter
Mr C Beard
Katharine Fletcher
Mr J Cornwell
Mr B Bell
S Butler-Finbow
Mr R Belsham
N Belton
J T Bendall
Rev Will Newman
Father C Maher
Mr R Bucknell
Rev P Need
Mr L Horsnell
Mons G Read
Rev Father D S Reynish Bed
Mr Cyril Bamforth
Mr Roderick Lane Lane
Rev S Lloyd
St Peter's Church
The Rev'd Philip Banks
St Bartholomew C of E Church
The Vicar
Mr Bill Brown
The Chapel
The Parish Church of St Michael
Mr T Andrews
Edna Chalmers
Rev P A Andrirnatos
Mrs H Crysell
P Blios
White Notley Parish Church
Mrs A Coleman
Mr D Malins
Mr Brian Morgan
Diocese of Chelmsford
Mr Andrew Fido
J B Wicks
Granta Housing Society Limited
Sanctuary Housing Association
Mr Charles Nash
Mr Peter Biggs
Mr Arthur Hedges
Littman & Robeson
Mr S J Staines
Blackwater/Anglia Housing Association
Mr Peter Court
Mrs P Bowers
G A Boyle
Braintree Electroplaters Ltd.
Mr J Still
Mrs C Burden
Mrs L Button
Mr J Grange
Mrs Karen Gregory
Mr & Mrs Griffiths
Mr Dave Gronland
Mr J Gunn
Mrs J Hadley
Mr Julian Hall
Mr P J Hamilton
Hanover Housing Association
Mrs Doreen Harman
Mr & Mrs Owen and Jean Harrison
Mr S G Hasler
Mr Steven Hathurst
Mrs R Hawes
Mr P Helps
Mr D Hicks
Mr V Hodgson
Mr & Mrs L J Holt
Housing 21
Mr Chris Howlett
Mr Paul Hudson
Mr Alfred John Hughes
Mr P Gratton
Peter Hutton
Ian M. Edwards Associates
K Jermyn
Mr M Jack
Ruth McCarey
Cllr J Baugh
Mr M Perlstrom
B Bell
Mr Ian Johnson
Mr & Mrs Kennedy
Mr & Mrs Kent
Mr Kent
E F King
Mr & Mrs Knopp
Mr Ricky Lamb
Mr L Martin
Mr Phillip Little
Mr Brain Legan
Ms Rose Freeman
Mr P Lomax
Mrs Susan Lord
Mr L P McCartney
Mr J Macrae
Mr I C Terry BSc. ARICS.
Mr Nigel Brooke
Ms J L May
Mr John McGlashan
Mr O McKenna
A R McLeod FRICS
Norwood
Mr M Bowen
Mr & Mrs M & P Middleton
Mr I Mitchell
Mobile Operators Association
D J Laver
Mr G Roberts
NACRO
Nayland Building Design
Mrs I Newby
Mr S Nice
Miss K Cafferkey
Mr S Norris
Mr Jonathan Wilde
Mr A Panton
Mrs Margaret Parmenter
Dr. D G H Patey
Mrs D A Patey
Mr K Pearson
Mr D R Smith
Mr Paul Gibbs
A Evans
Mrs Pilgrim
Ellie Smith
Mr A Cole
Mr Brian Smith
Mr C Cooper
Rosa Etherington
Mr P Craig
Mr P Crowe
R H Curtis
Mr M Scoot
Mr D Clarke
Ms M Ewel
Mr John Haugh
Mr Sebastian Hanley
Mr Bernard Digby
Mr E A Donnelly
Mr M Duffill
East Thames Housing Group
Ms S Dicker
Mrs B Ellison
Mr Peter Cassidy
Mr Richard Hockey
Estuary Housing Association
Mr & Mrs E G Ewers
G S Cass
Mr D Fegesse
Mr T J Portway
R F Wacey
Mr A Quinlan
R F Herrington FRICS.
Mr M Harris
Mrs M M Ratcliffe
Mr J Reeves
Mr A Reynolds
Amanda Brown
A G Roberts
Rowbottom Developments Ltd.
Mr M Runnacles
Mrs J Russell
Salvation Army Housing Association
G Sansum
Mr S Saward
Mr P Schwier
James Sims-Williams
Mr Dan Skeates
Mr M L Smith
Mrs J Smith
Mr David Smith
Mr Colin Smith
Mr Richard Smith
Mr C A Richardson
C Storey MRICS.
Springboard Housing Group
Mr Liam Boyd
Mr I W Steel
Mr B J Fleet
Mr H Parkinson
Mr D B Gale
Mr P Nicklin
G S Oliver
The Right Reverend John Gladwin
Mr D Glasson
Mr Kevin Godfrey
Mr J Capworth
Ms D Carson
Dr G E Chapman
Mr Clark
Suffolk Housing Society Ltd.
Mr D Sullivan
Mr J M Summerskill
Mr V Swallow
R Sweetman
Mr R B Tattersall
Miss L Nelson
Miss M J Eskins
Mr G W Tickner
T D Harbord
Mr C Tivey
Mr Provan
Mr Trundle
Mrs T Tulley
Ms A Turner
Mr Andy Lawson
B P Walker
The Ven. A Cooper
PlanningPolicy
Mrs Margaret Dennis
Katherine Blake
Mr Ken Squibb
Mr Sean Millar
Mr Brian Tann
Mr Anthony Meyer
Mrs Elizabeth Edey
Cllr John McKee
Cllr Lene Shepherd
Mr Malcolm Dunn
Mr David Hume
Cllr David Bebb
Mr Fred Swallow
Ms Rosemary O'Shea
Cllr Sandra Howell
Cllr John Elliott
Cllr Janet Money
Ms Lucy Barlow
Mr Stephen Lambourne
Mr Trevor McArdle
MR TERRY DIXON
Moiz Khanbhai
Mr Graeme Free
T Brown
Mr Bruce Hanley
Mr Phil Benns
Mrs Christine Ann Eliason
Phil Sturges
Mr Richard Ramsey
Mr Glynn Parsley
Mr David Bull
Mr Ian Poole
Mr Richard Paczko
Mr & Mrs K Green
Mr Ian Anderson
Marks Tey Consortium
Town and Country Development (Essex) Ltd
L Boxall
Andrew Martin Associates
Mr Adam Smith
Mr Jim Holder
Mr Stephen Austin
C/O Lisa Arber
Maurice Young
Angela Schembri
Mr Stephen Rolph
Mr Kevin Fraser
Ms Sara King
Mr Ian Robottom
Mr Ian Hawkins
Mr D Gowers
Mr Jon Clay
Mr Paul Ryland
Mr David Alton
Mr Chris Strickland
Countryside Properties Plc.
Mr Andrew Dodgson
Messrs Ramsey
Dean Byford & Sarah Charlton
Sam Cook
Mrs Steed
Mrs Susan McCrea
Mr D Lawrence
Mrs Giles Hodges
Mr John Lovric
Mr S.T. Rhenius
Mr Andrew Epsom
Mr Chris Dale
Mr John Todhunter
mr robin purchas
Ms T Turner
Mr Gareth Knight
G Bell
Mr Kenneth Logue
Mr Martin Tyrrell
Elaine Vashi
Mr James Salmon
Mr William Clarke
Mrs E Smith
Victoria Adams
Mandy Gill
Mr H Humphries
Mr Gary O'Doherty
Mr J B Bowyer
K T Bonnage
Mr Colin Bates
Mrs D Hilliard
Reverend Robert Beaken
Equality & Human Rights Commission
Miss DO NOT USE Joanna Hardwick
B Vermilio
Mr B Mann
Marks Farm Partnership
Faris Barlow
Mr David Barker
Gemma Tromans
Mr Aaron Dixey
Mr Des Wilson
Mr Robin Meehan
Mr Ron Elliston
Mr Geoffrey Cohen
Mr G H Watson
Firstcity
Mr Hamish Feldy
Mr Vernon Weller
Mrs Caroline Cawson
Mr Rob Chapman
Mrs W Y Hearn
Rachael, Stephen, Kai Hart-Bryan
Mr William Waples
Adele Waples
Mr and Mrs Puttock
Mr and Mrs R F Allen
Mr and Mrs J Braybrook
Linda Sharpe
Mr Richard Parsons
Emma Succamore & John Pennell Emma Succamore & John
Pennell
Mr & Mrs C Poulter
Emma Laws
Mrs Norma Dases
Mr D Holmes
Ms H Holmes
Belinda Hoste
Mr Michael Hutley
Mrs Chapman
Mrs V Turner
Mr John Redgwell
A & V Chapman
Mr & Mrs Falzarano
Mr and Mrs F J Kiddle
Mrs P Webb
Mr & Mrs R Brown
Mrs Lilian Springett
D Watkins
F Sheldrake
Mr Stephen Haygreen
Mr and Mrs L Sutton
Mrs Smith
Mr and Mrs A & B Polson
Cllr Malcolm Fincken
S A Wright
C Howling
I Chinnery
Mr and Mrs R M French
Mr and Mrs Nield
Mr Crome
Mr Steve Price
Mrs Sue Rouse
Mr Wigg
Patricia Pead
Lisa Pickering
Mr A Palmer
Mr and Mrs Turner
Mr K Gipps
Mr and Mrs S K Farvous
S Hood
Ms Lindsey Read
Mr William Allan
Mrs Charmaine Dean
Mr Moutimer
Mrs Linda May
Mrs Barbara Chinnery
Mrs P.A Baldwin
Mrs J Peaston
Mrs S Bradbrook
Mr and Mrs A and J Shuttlewood
J Bowtell
Ms Sharon May
Clarke
Mr and Mrs A Thornton
Mrs C Bateman
Mr and Mrs K and P Ahearn
Mr Adrian Dunningham
Mr VJ Townsend
J A Fuller
G Crow
Mr B Wilkinson
Mr ML Ciame
Ms Josie Roel
Mr and Mrs Rowe
The Rev'd & Mrs C W Danes
Mr and Mrs Smith
Miss Amy Potter
Mr John Ellson
Mrs W Runham
Mrs R Hall
AC Harrington
Mr Stephen John Bolter
Miss Davinia Venton
Mr Robert Wright
Cllr Eric Lynch
Ms S Roper
Ms Alison Talkington
Ms Cheryl Gerald
Mrs Karen Scott
Ms Lynn Green
Mr Michael Leach
Mrs Jane Coleman
Mrs V Bruce
M. V Anderson
M Prime
Cllr. Mike Banthorpe
Mrs C McCarthy
Mr R Wiltshire
Mrs Sian Derbyshire
Mr Richard Tunnicliffe
Mr. Francis Thompson
Mr Steve Hancocks
Mrs L Warwick
Countryside Properties Limited
John Pease
Mr John Benson
Mr John Schonert
The Trustees of the Northern Estate Trust
Exors of Nigel Vaizey & Co Owners
The Trustees of the Martlets Estate
Mr C Porter
Unknown
P J French
R R & E S Ward
Mrs T Lee
Mr & Mrs Fancy
Mr D J Hosford
Mr Paul Brown
Mrs Daryll Golding c/o Boydens
Mr Philip Howorth
Construct Reason Ltd
Mr David Cooper
Capel House Property Trust Ltd.
Mr & Mrs Clayden
Fairview New Homes
Mr W Fisher
Mr B Goodson
C Doe
Mr R J Suckling
Mr Richard Long
Mr Paul Hales
Mr G Tanner
Mrs Nicola Bickerstaff
CHELMSFORD Diocese Board Of Finance
Mr Bethell
Messrs Smith & Turpin
Mr & Mrs Gerhard
Mr P M Ratcliffe
Executors of Late Robert Hills
Strutt and Parker (Farms) Ltd
Robert Brett & Sons Ltd
Unknown
Mr R Hunt
R F Chapman
Mr James Thompson
The Trustees of St Mary's Field
Mr H Ralling
Ms Deborah Ruffel
Mr James Thompson
Client839
Mr Stephen Norris
Harold Good Farm Trust
Granville Developments
Bellway/Raven/CML/Chelmsford Diocesan Board of Finance
Elderly Housing and Care Home Providers
Land Securities Trillium
Tesco Stores Ltd
Unknown
Mr S Wildman
A Cockrell
Colne Valley Golf Club
R W Spencer and Son Ltd
Tarmac Ltd
Mr S Mortimer
Unknown
Webber/Dixon/Smith
Messrs Wiffin
Messrs J N & D Cousins
Messrs Price
Cressing Park Holdings
Messrs Hubbard
Mr Dennis Hodds
East Essex Hunt
Mrs Linda Palmer
Mrs Z Napier
Ms J Ward
Strutt and Parker (Farms) Ltd
Mrs Clements
Newton Family
Mrs C Woodhouse
Repairbrook Ltd
Mr and Mrs J Conner
Mrs S Brierly
Mr and Mrs Janet and John Potton
Mr Cork
Ms Sandra Frost
Mr Goodchild
O O'Neill
Mr W Buckley
C Reynolds
Mr Stuart Cock
Margaret Somerville
Mrs Hayden
Mr and Mrs Van Gelder
Hunwick Engineering Ltd
Mrs D McIlroy
Mr DJ and RHA Pannell
Mrs P Percival
Braintree Leisure Ltd
unknown
Galliard Homes Ltd
Mr Stephen Lloyd
Greene King
Mr Dean Tabone
Mr Billie Hayes
Mr Karl Healey
Mr Stuart Cock
Mr Rod Lane
Mrs Pauline Hennessey
Mrs J Bonnington
Mid Essex Primary Care Trust
Mr Gary Goodhew
Construct Reason Ltd
Mrs I R Collett
Mr G Bober
Mr R Chaplin
CHELMSFORD Diocese Board Of Finance
Georgina Grayland
C F E Hill
Mrs D Hunt
Premdor
Mr and Mrs Keeble
Tesco Stores Ltd
Consortium of Landowners in respect of Maltings Lane Mr Jack Prime
A Phillips
Tesco Stores Ltd
Mrs Pauline Ellis
Swan Hill Homes
Dr Lesley Cooper
Braintree Leisure Ltd
Mr Kevin Willcox
James Developments
Mr D Leverett
Higgins Homes Ltd
Mrs J S Cain
Mr C Young
Mr David Harvey
Cemex
Mr J A Clarke
Bermac Properties plc
Mrs Beverley Steel
Mr J Andrews
Mr Tony Strudwick
Mr C S Gosling
Miss Emilie Bills
Mr G Lanza
Mr Moiz Khanbhai
Redrow Homes (Eastern) Ltd
M R W Button
Swift Developments
Mr and Mrs Ellison
Ulting Overseas Trust
Ms Kathleen Cole
Galliard Homes Ltd
Mr Steven Miller
The Crown Estate Office
Ms Sue Spinks
Mr N Barton
Mr E A White
Mr and Mrs Thompson
Mr C Taylor
Councillor Barbara Collar
Mr Brian Hagan
Ms Marie Hodds
Mr Iain Paton
Mr Iain Ashford
Mr Paul McConnell
Mr Patrick Pawsey
Mr Chris Long
Mr & Mrs J White
Mr S Goodfellow
Councillor Diana Garrod
Ms Jemma Ferridge
Miss H Bonnington
Mr Stuart Anderson
Ms Angela Melia
Mrs T Plane
Mr B Callow
Mr John Camp
Ms Nicola Little
Mr Ian Bonnington
Mrs M L Gardner
Mr Paul Hart
Mr Roger Duffin
Ms Katy King
Mr John Getty
Mr Adam Holland
Cressing Park Holdings
Mr Karl Gibson
Mrs Linda Portch
Dr Irene Bainbridge
Mr William Palmer
Mr Ian Norton
Mrs C Beavis
Mr George Worster
Mrs Winifred Thomas
Mr Scott Billson
Mr JA Beavis
Mr Lee Harding
Mr Vernon Rolls
Ms Sophie Ansell
A Williams
C Wright
M Clifford
Mrs Y.P McDonnell
E Robinson
D Pailter
J Bateman
A Gladden
S Jeffrey
J Peacock
S Holland
A Austin
R D Chinnery
Mr Keith Newbitt
Mrs Valerie Ockelford
Mrs Dorothy Watson
Mr David Lee
Ms B.G. Rice
Mark Wilson
Mr John Huggett
Mrs S Allfrey
Mr Mark Fisher
D Andrews
Mr and Mrs Field
Mr David Blaylock
Ms L Hockley
Susan Fisher
Ms Rachel Whitfield
Mr Brian Joscelyne
Mr S Braster
Mr Ashley Spurling
Mrs L.A Edwards
Mr A.T. Pearce
Mr Carl Edwards
Karen Bridge
Mr Howard Bills
R G Barker
Mr W.P. Clayton
Mrs L O'Leary
Mrs D Goate
Mr S Brailey
Mr R Allen
Mr & Mrs Burton
Mr A Ryman
Denise Howard
BM & J Bush
Mr A Walsh
Mr David McCartney
Mr & Mrs Tushaw
Mrs Stephanie Bills
Ms Natasha Agombar
Riddleston
W J Body
Mr Philip Welch
L A Jordan
Mr A Bonnington
Mr Jonathan Wicks
Mr and Mrs P and A Culling
Mrs Emine Weaire
Mr Graham Legg
Braintree LSP Executive Group
Mrs Gina Legg
Robert Hill, Executors of Late
Mr John Evans
Banbridge
Gemma Grimes
Mr D Porth
Mr T A Raybould
Mr Alan Carr
Cllr A W Hayward
Mrs A Howes
Mr Andrew Temperton
Mrs Julie Watts
Mr & Mrs Spurling
Mr Terry Brooks
Unex Technical Services
Miss Ann Wood
Mr Kenneth Davies
Mrs Susan Fuller
Mr P Ogburn
Mr Richard Ramsey
Mr and Mrs Spry
Mr Hicks
Mrs Jennifer Smith
Cllr Chris Siddall
Ms & Mr Smith & Passfield
Clive Walker & Michelle Leading
Mr David Higgins
Mrs Tyler
Mr Adrian Dunningham
Halstead Residents Association
Sarah Allison
Countryside Properties
Mr Peter Sale
David Paul
Brian Wright
Mrs Joan Watson
The Owner/Occupier
J.M & J.E Rayner
The Owner/Occupier
The Owner/Occupier
Mr George Harris
The Owner/Occupier
The Owner/Occupier
Miss Katy Humphreys
The Owner/Occupier
Mr Stanley Barrett
Mr & Mrs Webb
Mr & Mrs Murton
M Eymere
Mrs Melanie A'Lee
The Owner/Occupier
Mr James Stevens
Mr Denis Elavia
Mr G R Nield
Mr Jonathan Mills
Mr Colin Pharoah
Mr Peter Cook
Mr and Mrs Romeli-Lee
Mr Jay Coleman
P.J. Brazier
Mrs Patricia Singleton
Mrs Nicola Bryant
B Bastiaansen & G Gildea
Mr John James
Yvonne Game
Mrs S M Dowd
Mrs S D Harris
Mrs Louise Youngman
Mr Derek R Middleton
Miss Susan Burton
Mr & Mrs P Sillis
Mrs Ann Jones
Mr & Mrs Gordon-Hancock
Mrs Olive Crabtree
Mrs Patricia Sullivan
Mrs Lynn Orrin
Mr John Hopkins
Mr & Mrs Dover
Mrs Janet Duncan
Mr & Mrs Cruickshank
DJ & JG Barnes
Mr Neil Hodges
Mr & Mrs Watson
Mrs J M Parker
Mr & Mrs Thorogood
Mrs K Guimas
Mrs Nicola Blyth
C A Twohey
Mr Anthony Wren
Miss Laura Davies
Mr Graham Roper
Mr Richard Quinnell
Mr David Newman
Mr & Mrs B V Collins
Mr & Mrs Brothers
Amanda Game
K J Owen
RJ & BM O'Brien
Miss Burford Mr Bowler
Mr Derek Ray
Mr Anthony White
Miss Charlotte Ward
Mr & Mrs Plumb
Mr & Mrs Clark
Mrs F Hawkswell
Mr & Mrs Merton
Mr Warren Gray
The Occupier
Mr T Milburn
Mrs S Butcher
Mr Alan Bodfield
N & S Wischhusen
Mr M A Hill
Mrs Jenny Wilson
Ms Gail Jackson
Miss Diane Leech
Mr & Mrs P Warren
Mr T Robinson
M Wyatt
Keeley LeBan
Miss M A Geeves
Mr Paul Woodridge
Sharon Leader
Mr Paul Belton
Mr J D Darrell
Mrs Burgess
Mr & Mrs Teeder
Mr Ian Marsden
Mr D Hills
T J Sheppard
Mr Mike Barritt
Mr Mike Cole
Mr PG Ratcliff
Donna Wickham Wickham
Secretary of State for Transport
Mr Dino Athan
S A Pearman
Cllr Patricia Lee
Mrs Emma Frankish
Mr Johnathan Hodgkin
Mr Graham Hughes
Mr John Hills
Mr Nye
Mr P J Cole
Mr Anthony Middlebrook
Mr David Golding
Mr John Nash
Mr Tim Bluff
Mr Carl Hockey
Ms Jane Turner
Mr John Lefever
Mr James Cutting
Mr Robert Frost
Mr Mark Wells
Mr Mike Goodson
Mr Akin Durowoju
Ms Susan Ramage
Mr Terry Fuller
Chelmer Canal Trust
The Church Commissioners
Mr Tony Middleton
Health & Safety Executive (Essex)
Fields in Trust
Women's National Commission
Mr Geriant Hughes
Priti Patel
Mrs Jean Burnside
Ms Hannah Bizoumis
Mr Jay Coleman
Mrs Lorraine Pearson
Mrs Karen James
Mr David Hill
Mr David Nichols
Mr Tony White
Miss Katy Eggleton
Mrs Ann Brench
Mr Steve Draper
Mrs Ellen Game
Mr David Game
Mr Bernard Palmer
Mr Michael Perry
Ms Angela Melia
Mr Roger Jenkins
Mr Eric Saltmarsh
Mrs Jacqueline May
Mr Jeremy R Spalding
Mr & Mrs S Uden
Mr Timothy Leahy
Miss Karen Boroughs
Mrs Nicky Wyatt
Mrs Beryl Bailey
Mr Martin Arnold
Mrs Maureen Bodfield
Miss Heather Turner
Miss Beverley Wallman
Mr Nicholas Scales
Mrs Christine Bealer
Arqiva
Mrs Hazel Deal
Mr Matthew Morton
Mr Neil Anderson
Mr David Uffindell
Mr Colin Shead
Mr Joseph Devenny
Mr Anthony Pitt
Mrs Mary Devenny
Mr Luke Merriman
Mr John Chambers
Mrs Joan Chambers
Mrs Veronica Crowe
Mrs D Callow
Miss Lucy Burton
Mr Kim Burton
Mr Kieran Burton
Miss Lindsay Branch
Mr Frederick Twindell
Mrs Pamela Twidell
Mr David Steel
Miss Charlotte Steel
Mrs Pamela Sawyer
Mr Eric Sawyer
Mr Kenneth Steel
Mrs Audrey Steel
Mr Robert McBurney
Mr Russell Thompson
Miss Toni Williams
Mrs Margaret Wren
Mr Terence Sheehan
Miss Catherine Hayward
Mr Donald Harvey
Mr Stephen Archer
Mr Paul Goold
Witham 1st Scout Group
Friends of Braintree
Mr Ernest Griffin
Mr Kenneth Gair
Mrs Shirley Gair
Mr Connor Gair
Mr Callum Gair
Mrs Karen Pears
Mrs Kate Ashton
Mr Geoffrey Dench
Mrs Gladys Hayes
Mrs Patricia Furse
Mr William Furse
Mr Peter Maryott
Mrs Julie White
Mr William White
Consultation Service
Mr Martin Fox
Mr James French
Mrs Carol Elaine Green
Mr Craig Chambers
Mrs Hazel Ray
Miss Rebecca Taylor
B Gingo
Mr Vincent Dunne
Mr Arthur Marshall
Mrs Michele Webb
Mrs Sharon Goodfellow
Mrs Jennifer Gibbons
Mr John Kelly
Mrs Jennifer Kelly
Mr Paul Gibbons
Mr Mark Austin
Mr Scott Pearman
Mr James jenkins
Mr G R Watt
Mr Ray Lesnik
Mr Tony Rowell
Mrs Bradshaw
D Garrod
Mrs S Cocks
Dr Roslyn Elliott
Mr William Bonwick
Mr & Mrs Stephen and Joyce Brownsell
Mr Dan Mason
mrs petra ward
Mrs M F Lewis
Mr & Mrs K and M Robins
Miss Kerry Clements
Mr Terry Clements
Mr Simon Van Minnen
Mr Frank Ramsden
Mrs Karen Brasier
Mr Josh Brasier
Mr Matthew Brasier
Mrs Cherry Quinnell
Mr Michael Button
Mr George Barlow
Mrs Melanie Harris
Mrs G Noble
Mr Reginald Franklin
Mrs Cynthia King
Miss Susan Frost
Mr John Green
Mrs Hazel Green
Ms Jenny Taylor
Mr and Mrs Bradshaw
Mrs Claire Williams
Ms Eileen Carr
Mr Robert Moore
Mr and Mrs Brian Tompsett
Mr Luke Raistrick
MR I.W KIDDY
Essex County Council
Mr Gyan Ludhor
Ms Helen De La Rue
Mrs Sue Bull
Miss AR McDonnell
Mr and Mrs Pink
Mr Frank Ladkin
Mrs Abi Olumbori
mr tom fryer
Mrs Rona Gottesmann
Diana May
Ms Pamela Jane
Ms Belinda Stoker
Mr Matthew Payne
Mr Kirk Wells
Mrs Linda Smith
Mr Lawrence Cox
Mr Panton
Mrs Rory Arnese
Mr A Galley
Mr Mike Eccles
Mr Richard Ford
c/o Andrew Martin Associates
Mr Dale Greetham
Mr Sean McGrath
Ms Emma Powell
Mr JF Hume
Ms Christine Cope
Mr S Hall
L & JC Sherman
Mr Jim Konig
Liz Pollock Worley
Mr Steve Gittins
Mr Paul Ambrose
Mr Bryan Baker
Ms Sofia Khatcherian
Mr Alan Holden
Miss Finola O'Neill
Mr & Mrs Edwin and Jean Baker
S C Tucker
Mr & Mrs Ron and Yvonne Laity
Mr John Parish
Mr Kevin Goodwin
Mrs Diane Fletcher
Mr & Mrs R Moriarty
Mr & Mrs G Money
Ms Sarah Lewis
Julie Amsden
Mr & Mrs Eldridge
Mr G J Trew
Mr Ian Smith
Mr Martyn Richardson
Mr Tony Isaac
Susan Betts
Mr & Mrs Pluck
Mr & Mrs B Barrett
N Wing
Mr & Mrs Caplen
Mr Ron Kidman
Marie Southwell
Mr Anthony Boast
Carly Bradshaw
Mr Robert Brown
Gary and Caroline Martin
Mr G S Gillman
Mr & Mrs Cooper
Mr & Mrs David and Anna Game
Ian and Sally Slack
Mr Stephen Dormer
Mr Stanley Perry
Patricia Wood
Mr A P Gardner
Mr Roger Dodman
Mr Jon Hinchliffe
Mr Graham Harmer
Mr P Drury
Mr James Waller
Mr Terence Cooper
Mr Ray Ranns
Maud Instone
Ann and David Spalding
Mr John Tapsfield
Mr John Ahsley
Mr Peter Collins
Mr Peter Game
Mr Neil Worledge
Mrs Jenny Worledge
Helen Beard
Mrs Jill Champion
Mr Stephen Johnson
Katrina Barker
Mr Robin Copus
Valarie Wood
Barbara Wilson
T A Pierce
Mr & Mrs Pateman
Mr John Grant
Mr Trevor Johnson
Mr David Mortimer
Mr John Ashley
HSBC CRE
Mr Jim Konig
Mr Tom Hyde
Mr Simon Dixon Smith
Mrs Jacqueline Smith
Geraldine Tate
Mrs Humphreys
Mrs S M Lam
Pam Beckwith
Park Stores
Grove House
CB Richard Ellis
Trigina Ltd
Mr A Pearce
Essex Strategic Health Authority
Ramsden Mills
Mrs Carolyn Johnson
Mr David Game
Mr Ian Coward
Ms Mary J Waite
Mr Peter Mercer MBE
Mr George Kasabov
Mr Tony Bishop
Proposed Future
Housing and Growth
Public Exhibitions
Site Allocation and Development Management Plan: Come along & Have Your Say
Come along to our
public exhibitions
in January and February
Tues 15th January
Earls Colne Village Hall
1.30pm - 6.30pm
Wed 16th January
Witham Public Hall
2.30pm - 7.30pm
Thurs 17th January
Witham Public Hall
2.30pm - 7.30pm
Mon 21st January
Braintree Town Hall Centre
2.30pm - 7.30pm
Tues 22nd January
Braintree Town Hall Centre
2.30pm - 7.30pm
Wed 23rd January
Great Yeldham Reading Rooms
2.30pm - 7.30pm
Thurs 24th January
Coggeshall Village Hall
2.30pm - 7.30pm
Mon 8th January
Halstead Queens Hall
2.30pm - 7.30pm
Wed 30th January
Hatfield Peverel Village Hall
2.30pm - 7.30pm
Thurs 31st January
Sible Hedingham Baptist Church
2.30pm - 7.30pm
Wed 6th February
Kelvedon The Institute
2.30pm - 7.30pm
Thurs 7th February
Silver End Congregational Church
2.30pm - 7.30pm
Seethedraftplansandtelluswhatyouthink.
Comments on the draft Plan should be received no later than
Friday 22nd February. For more information please visit the
Council’s website www.braintree.gov.uk/planning
NOTICE
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
10 January 2013 to 22nd February 2013
th
Local Development Framework
Publication of the draft
Site Allocations and Development Management Plan
Braintree District Council are consulting on the draft Site Allocations and Development
Management Plan which will allocate sites for housing, employment and other land uses
and detail policies which will be used to determine planning applications.
Former Garage site, South Street, Braintree (reference BRC36H) has been proposed in
the draft plan as a housing site of 10 or more dwellings.
You can view a copy of the draft plan in the local libraries and at www.braintree.gov.uk
A public exhibition will be held on Monday 21st and Tuesday 22nd January at Braintree
Town Hall from 2:30pm to 7:30pm where you will be able to meet with officers. Please see
website for the full list of exhibitions – www.braintree.gov.uk
How to respond to our consultation:
• Online: public consultation programme at:
http://braintree-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/
• Email: [email protected]
• Post: Planning Policy, Braintree District Council, Causeway House, Braintree, CM7
9HB
*If responding by email or post please use consultation form available on website www.braintree.gov.uk*
All consultation responses must be received no later than 5pm on Friday 22nd February.

- Braintree District Council

Transcription

Similar documents

Mrs. Starr`s Second Grade Class loves going to the computer lab

Funeral Services For Mrs. Jennie Thompson are rteld

2010 Part 2

CNTEAEDITION2Newsletter - Colts Neck Township Education

January News: School News: Welcome back

ComQuest Reports - ComQuest Academy Charter High School

Longhorn New s

Parent Meeting Handout - Green Room

Important Dates First in Math - Clark

August 2015 - Northwest Alabama FCA