Statement of Consultation Part 1 Regulation 18 Consultation on the Draft Site Allocations and Development Management Plan

Braintree District Council

January 2014

Contents

1. Background 2. Introduction 3. Consultation Process 4. Consultation Responses Received 5. 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 26 th March, 11 th April, 8 th May, 30 th May, 13 th June, 17 th June, 11 th July, 24 th 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) Which bodies and persons Braintree District Council invited to make representations under Regulation 18 on the draft Site Allocations and Development Management Plan (ii) How these bodies and persons were invited to make representations under Regulation 18 (iii) A summary of the main issues raised by the representations made pursuant to Regulation 18 (iv) 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 9 th January and 22 nd 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 a nd Time Location Number of Attendees 15 th January 1.30pm – 6.30pm Earls Colne 62 16 th January 2.30pm – 7.30pm Witham 46 17 th January 2.30pm – 7.30pm Witham 61 21 st January 2.30pm – 7.30pm Braintree 46 22 nd January 2.30pm – 7.30pm Braintree 66 23 rd January 2.30pm – 7.30pm Great Yeldham 70 24 th January 2.30pm – 7.30pm Coggeshall 100 28 th January 2.30pm – 7.30pm Halstead 86 30 th January 2.30pm – 7.30pm Hatfield Peverel 137 31 st January 2.30pm – 7.30pm Sible Hedingham 62 6th February 2.30pm – 7.30pm Kelvedon 123 7th February 2.30pm – 7.30pm Silver End 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 22 nd 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 land- owners 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 26 th March, 11 th April, 8 th May, 30 th May, 13 th June, 17 th June and 11 th July 2013 and changes were recommended in response to those comments. The meeting on the 24 th 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 non- residential 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. Changes Proposed: None 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. Changes Proposed: None

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. Changes Proposed: None

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. Changes Proposed: None

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. Changes Proposed: None

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. Changes Proposed: None

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. Changes Proposed: None

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. Changes Proposed: None

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. Changes Proposed: None

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. Changes Proposed: None

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 Changes Proposed: None

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. Changes Proposed: None

Great Saling The inset map(s) for Great Saling received 1 comment generally supporting the Plan. Changes Proposed: None

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. Changes Proposed: None

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. Changes Proposed: None

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. Changes Proposed: None

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. Changes Proposed: None

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. Changes Proposed: None

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. Changes Proposed: None

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. Changes Proposed: None

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. Changes Proposed: None

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. Changes Proposed: None

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. Changes Proposed: None

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. Changes Proposed: None

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 Development Management Plan

Appendix

Braintree District Council

January 2014

Official Use only Rep Number

Representation Form for Consultation on the Site Allocations and Development Management Plan

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 22 nd 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 22 nd February.

Our ref: Sustainable Development Your ref: Causeway House Braintree Ask for: Planning Policy Essex CM7 9HB Dial: 01376 551414 Tel: 01376 552525 Ext: 2567 Fax 01376 557787 Date: 9th January 2013 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 10 th 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; • Housing developments of 10 dwellings or more • Land which will be used for employment • Open space and land set aside for recreation and allotments • 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 15 th January Earls Colne Village Hall 1.30pm – 6.30pm • Wednesday 16 th January Witham Public Hall 2.30pm – 7.30pm • Thursday 17 th January Witham Public Hall 2.30pm – 7.30pm • Monday 21 st January Braintree Town Hall 2.30pm – 7.30pm • Tuesday 22 nd January Braintree Town Hall 2.30pm – 7.30pm • Wednesday 23 rd January Great Yeldham Reading Rooms 2.30pm – 7.30pm • Thursday 24 th January Coggeshall Village Hall 2.30pm – 7.30pm • Monday 28 th January Halstead Queens Hall 2.30pm – 7.30pm • Wednesday 30 th January Hatfield Peverel Village Hall 2.30pm – 7.30pm • Thursday 31 st January Sible Hedingham Baptist Church 2.30pm – 7.30pm • Wednesday 6 th February Kelvedon Institute 2.30pm – 7.30pm • Thursday 7 th 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

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: 2061 Sustainable Development Your ref: N/A Causeway House Braintree Ask for: Planning Policy Essex CM7 9HB Dial: 01376 551414 Tel: 01376 552525 Ext: 2567 Fax 01376 557787 Date: 9th January 2013 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 10 th 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; • Housing developments of 10 dwellings or more • Land which will be used for employment • Open space and land set aside for recreation and allotments • 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 15 th January Earls Colne Village Hall 1.30pm – 6.30pm • Wednesday 16 th January Witham Public Hall 2.30pm – 7.30pm • Thursday 17 th January Witham Public Hall 2.30pm – 7.30pm • Monday 21 st January Braintree Town Hall 2.30pm – 7.30pm • Tuesday 22 nd January Braintree Town Hall 2.30pm – 7.30pm • Wednesday 23 rd January Great Yeldham Reading Rooms 2.30pm – 7.30pm • Thursday 24 th January Coggeshall Village Hall 2.30pm – 7.30pm • Monday 28 th January Halstead Queens Hall 2.30pm – 7.30pm • Wednesday 30 th January Hatfield Peverel Village Hall 2.30pm – 7.30pm • Thursday 31 st January Sible Hedingham Baptist Church 2.30pm – 7.30pm • Wednesday 6 th February Kelvedon Institute 2.30pm – 7.30pm • Thursday 7 th 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. Great Waltham Parish Council Ancer Spa (Midlands) Ltd Haverhill Town Council Anglian Water Services Ltd Highways Agency Arqiva Home Builders Federation Atkins Telecom Homes and Communities Agency Babergh District Council Homes and Communities Agency Boreham Parish Council Housing Corporation Braintree Association of Local Councils Hutchinson 3G Braintree Fire Station Kedington Parish Council British Gas Connections Ltd Langford & Ulting Parish Clerk British Telecom Lindsell Parish Council British Telecom Little Baddow Parish Council BT Little Bardfield Parish Council Bures St Mary Parish Council Little Braxted Parish Council Cambridgeshire County Council Little Cornard Parish Council Castle Camps Parish Council Little Waltham Parish Council Cavendish Parish Council Long Melford Parish Council Chappel Parish Council Maldon District Council Chelmsford City Council Marks Tey Parish Council Clare Parish Council Messing Cum Inword Parish Council Colchester Borough Council Mobile Operators Association Connect (Quadrant Pipelines Ltd & Mount Bures Parish Council Independent Pipelines Ltd) Mowlem Energy Ltd Constituency Office National Grid Copford & Easthorpe Parish Council Natural England Department for Education & Skills One2One Department for Transport Orange East of England Development Agency Passenger Focus East of England LGA Saffron Walden Constituency East of England LGA South Cambridgeshire District Council East of England Strategic Health Authority Sport England, Eastern Region English Heritage St Edmundsbury Borough Council Environment Agency Stebbing Parish Council EPN South Highway services Stoke by Clare Parish Council ES Pipelines Ltd Suffolk County Council Essex & Suffolk Water Taxi Association Essex Ambulance Service Technical Director The National Trust The Planning Inspectorate Essex County Council Tiptree Parish Council Essex Fire & Rescue Service T-Mobile (UK) Ltd Essex Police Uttlesford District Council Essex Police Virgin Media Felsted Parish Council Vodafone G.T.C. Wakes Colne Parish Council Glemsford Parish Council Wixoe Parish Council Great & Little Leighs Parish Council Great Braxted Parish Council Mr D R Miller Great Cornard Parish Council Mr David Galley Great Sampford Parish Council Mr Roger Odell Mr Michael Hargreaves Ms Donna Marino Mr George Ellis Mr David Barker Mr Steve Arthur Mason Mr David Lewis Mr Robin Pleasance Ms Emma Deighan Mr Rob Dobson Mr Christopher Warder Smith Ms Jan Gardner Ms Verity MacMahon Mr Mark Hidge NATS Mrs Diana Jacobs Mr Sam Mott Mr Ken Wiltshire Kathleen Ford Annie Gordon Janet Mizzen Messrs Jack and Guy Agazarian Marjorie Timms Mr gerry johnson J G Nicholls Mr Chris Howard Mr & Mrs Barber Mr Graham Went Sally Pulfer Mrs Jane Sexton Mr David Flood Mr Paul Mitchell Mrs Linda Sadler Mr Greg Howell M Bates Mr Jeremy White Mr & Mrs Root Mr and Mrs Lily and Bruce Vickers Jean Frost Mr Matt Lee K R Wheeler Ms Emma Ousbey Mr Brian Frost Cllr Tom Cunningham Iris Blackery Cllr Stephen Canning B H Johnson Cllr Miss Vanessa Santomauro Dorothy Fraser Cllr Robert Wright Mr Eric R Childs Cllr Mrs Collette Gibson Flo Greeves Cllr Ms Lyn Walters Marion Hills Cllr Chris Cadman L E Brown Cllr Mrs Susan Wilson Mr & Mrs Lunn Cllr Mrs Julia Allen Mr John Chapman Cllr Stephen Kirby Gladys Freswater Cllr Mrs Jennifer Sutton Mr & Mrs Muffett Cllr Derrick Louis Iris Calvo Cllr Hylton Johnson Mr & Mrs Cooper-Cocks Cllr Peter Tattersley Mr David Stevens Cllr Julian Swift Mrs W Miller Cllr Philip Barlow Mrs Joyce Hall Cllr Mrs Corinne Thompson Mary Smith Cllr Patrick Horner Lord A E Cann Cllr Mrs Cheryl Louis Mr Albert Dowdall Cllr William Rose E M Layer Cllr Mrs Iona Parker Mr Robert Shaw Mrs Brenda Baker Mr & Mrs Heath Mr Richard Ford Mr & Mrs Green Ms Angela Lock Debbie Page Mr Jim Bailey R Hume Ms Sharon Smith Phil Ms Loraine Kelly Mr & Mrs Richardson Mr Mark Merchant Mr George Devall Mrs R Lawes Mr Joe Davies MRS TINA HODGE MRS TINA HODGE Maltings Academy Georgina Challis J E Fox Mr Paul White Mr John Irving Mr B Miller Mr John Irving Ms Suzanne Emery Mr Kevin Faulkner Mr Alexander Brady Miss Ilinca Diaconescu Ms Anne Wiles Mr Andrew Fairbairn Christina Squibb Cllr Lynette Bowers-Flint Willcock Cllr Martin Green Cllr Francesco Ricci deadline Mrs Sherry Webb Mr P E Pawsey Mr Mike Lambert Mr Alvar Digby Mr Robert Gardiner Mr Peter Williams Mr Andrew Martin Mr Gerald Wisby Mr Peter Sullivan A M Stimpson sarah kirk Mrs Jenny Claydon Mrs Sheila Fullbrook Mrs G Warner mr Matthew Lee Mr David Edwards Mrs J Elfes Mr Neil Dinwiddie Mrs Rosa Etherington Mr Chris Hunnable Dawn Brailsford Mrs J Oliver Ms Patricia Nutt Mr Steve Landridge Mr Jack Parish Mr Ben Allen Systemafter Ltd Mr Mark Norman Construct Reason Ltd & Mr D Jones Dr Caroline Davies TLC Care Homes Ltd Mrs Doris Gowers Braintree South Alliance Mrs Margaret Drysdale Mrs Fiona Waugh Miss Ilinca Diaconescu Royal Masonic Benevolent Institution Mr Edward Keymer Franciscan Sisters Mr David Broddle C F E Hill Mr Richard Foulsd Trustees of St Mary's Field, Mr Steve Langridge Redding Park Development Company Mr Duncan Perry Barratt Homes (Eastern Counties) Susanne Chung E Hobbs (Farms) Ltd Mr Richard Playle W G Developments Kelly Weeks Flitchway Settlement Dr Annie Gordon Mr A Bonnett Mr Stuart Grout Woodland Group Natalie Drewett Forwarding Investment Properties Mr Robin Carpenter Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd Teresa O'Connor Bellway Homes & The Raven Group Mr Crispin Downs James Development Company Ltd Sandra Bissett Mr Gordon Fulcher Mr Page G Fulcher & Morray Engineering Mr Timothy Knight Mr D'arcy Mr Paul Mcqueen East of England CoOperative Society mr robert tappin Mrs P Hennessey Mr Michael Eley Mr R Turpin Mr Tony Bradley Mr and Mrs M Gerhart mr david house Mr Courtauld MR DONALD MCWATT Franciscan Sisters Mr Richard Gray Mr GVS Nott mrs julie mahoney Mr J Nott Mrs Catherine Irving Mrs Grimwood-King Mrs Susan Held JWS Wright and Sons Mr Wright Mr T Barker Bloor Homes Mr I Yeldham Mr Michael Austin and family Rachel Patterson Trustees of JSG Pelly Diane Bowyer Vellacott Mr Dave Hodgson Gooding & Ashby - Witten Mr A Stevens Mr Stephen Walsh Mr Matthew Morton Mr J Melia Mr David Oakley McDonnell Mohan Ltd Mrs Rita Churcher BHC Mr Peter Smith Mr D Smith Abigail Dodds Crest Strategic Projects Ltd Mr C I Marsden Essex Fire & Rescue Service Mr D Clark CML Micro & Chelmsford Diocese BofF Mr J Gallant Mr Richard Hatch Mr Clinton Riley Lanswood Ltd Mr I Yates West Register (Realisations) Mrs J Cole Mr & Mrs Weekes Mr R Steward ASDA Stores Ltd Mr S Brice West Tey Consortium Mr E Isbell Mr Martin Scott Miss T A Scanlan Aubries Estates Mr C Aldous Mr Christopher Warder Smith Colchester Gay Switchboard Mrs Ann Sparks Mr Anthony Raftery Mrs Barbara Skeggs Mr Donald Kenneth Lindsell Mr & Mrs Tubbs Mr & Mrs Terence & Muriel Larkin Sorrells Field Cllr John O'Reilly-Cicconi CWO Parker Mr Alan Gray Mr Ian Yates Mr Robert Frank Thoday Mr Debruin Mrs Maureen Wallace RWH PROPERTIES Mr James Howe Booth Charities Mr A Hasib Mr & Mrs Jaggard-legerton Mr Michael Sewell Hunt Property Trust Ms Lynn Williams Mapley Steps Ltd Mr John Watson Mr Neil Cowburn Mr Michael Hawes Mrs M Wilson & Mrs E Backhouse Mrs Vera Batkins Royal Mail Mr Peter Champion Teign Drive Residents Mrs Janet Shepherd Mrs Robson Mr Dan Hallett Mrs Karen Skinner Mr Roy Warren Mr Derek Pluckrose J Mycroft Mrs Ruby Goodwin Mr D Webber Mr Peter Candler Messrs Baines & Harman Mr Alan Reed Mr Philip Whittome Mr Tony Chadwick Mr Rob Weston Mr Martin Geoffrey Hammond Mr M Wilkes Mr John Andrews Mr B Williamson Mr Stephen Bezzant D&G Wilson Mr Robert Isted Mr J Abbott Mrs Judith Slater Mr B Fleet Mr Terence Boreham Margaret Robins Mr Ian Wood Mr & Mrs C Wood Mr Peter Francis Bransby-Zachary Mrs A Wright Ms Avril Hodgkins Mr Norman Rose Miss Kate Jackson Mr Barry Ludlam Mrs Wendy Lee Mrs Joan Sturgis Mrs Linda Heyman Mrs Irene Everett Mr Ross Allen Mr Julian Hunnable Mr Brian Pereira Mr Michael Morgan Mr Paul Parmenter Mr Neil Taylor Miss Sue Burden Mrs Mary Joslin Mr Andrew Wood Marsh Properties & Services Ltd Mrs Sandra Miller Mr Ivan Sutton Mr & Mrs C & J Thompson Mrs Georgina Wade Ms Grace Bryers Mrs Kay Bradshaw Mrs Sally Barron Mr Patrick Bones Mrs Christine Othen Mrs Sandra Doe Mr David Williams Mr Robert Marshall Mr Roger Browning Mr & Mrs Gary & Sandra Turbard Mr & Mrs Trevor & Linzi Williams Mr Terence Rowland Mr Keith Pook E. W KING & CO LTD Mr Ian Peaty Mr A T B George Mr Roger Duffin Mrs J Leech Mr Roy Cox Mr Victor Rogers Mrs Anne Balfour Mr William Bright Mr John Clough Mr R P Jordan Mr Douglas Martin Ms Joan Noble Mr R Patel Mrs Renee Hockley-Byam Mr Peter Sale Mrs Desdra Leitch Mr Nigel Brown Mr Barry Gibson Mr Tim Malyon Mr Mick Ruszkiewicz Mrs D J Pickford Miss Lorraine Pretty Mr Andrew Waddell Mrs Sylvia Ely Mr Christopher Cater Miss Caroline Lewin Mr Geoff Shaw Mr Eric Noakes Mr Daniel Downes Mr Martin Gibbs Mrs Sylvia Abbott Mrs Daphne Ellen Parris Mrs Janet Mellon Mr Henry Bishop Mr Andrew Bloomfield Mr Wells BC Mitchams Farms (Burwell Ltd) & Associate Compan Mrs Angela Riley Mr Peter Abbott Mrs Linda White Mr & Mrs Main Mr & Mrs Peter & Vicky Lynn Murs Hon Thomas Lindsay Mrs L I Frost Mr & Mrs Andrew & Jean Letham Mr Richard Warren Mr David Smith Mrs Joan Clarke Mrs Claire Darch Mr Paul Wright Mrs Susan Ireland Mr William Blaxland Mr Gerald Harold Lancaster Mrs Elizabeth Mackenzie Mr Dennis Buston Mrs Bridget Couch Ms Janet Harvey Mr & Mrs Leonard & Helen Gray Mr Chris Nicholas Mr Alan Richard Rutland Mrs Catherine Miriam Gray Mr Brian Willey Mr & Mrs Farrow Mr Raymond Harris Mr Robert Adam Mr Derek Lotery Mrs Weitz Mr Ian Weatherley Mr Peter Long Mr Neil McLelland Mr Ian Ayres Mr Dennis Little Mrs Julia Sherlock Mrs Pamela Whelan Mr C James Co-operative Group Pension Fund Trustees Ltd Mrs A Kelliher Rosmoyne Ltd Mr J Smith Mr Dan Hallett Ms A Richardson Mr Philip Heath-Coleman Mrs D Bailey Mr Derek Ford Cllr Roger Walters Ms Charlotte Andrews Mrs Lynn Watson Mr Edward Leader Mr Tim Wilkinson B & Q Plc Mr John Collar Mr S Berney Cllr Mrs Wendy Scattergood Mr M Halls Mr Nigel Harley Ms Mary Holditch Mrs Kathie Tearle Mr Sutton Mr Nigel McCrea Grove Smith Ltd Mrs Karen Melville-Ross Mr Allister Burgess Mrs F J Wells Mr Ray Banning Mrs K Fox Mr Joe Leedham Mrs K Fox Mrs J Kenny Mrs C Carlisle Mr James Wicks Mrs P Potter Mr Duncan Gray Mrs A Crisp Mr Herbert Wicks Annette Thorpe Mr John Oldham Orange Mr & Mrs Peterson Hutchinson 3G Mr Malcolm Hobbs Vodafone Mrs H Picknell-Stride One2One Ms L Potter A.P.T. Mrs B Reed Mr Angus Goody Mrs L Riley c/o Mr Simon Pease Mr Peter Crawley T-Mobile (UK) Ltd Mr F V Branwhite The Communications Manager Mrs C Branwhite The Planning Inspectorate Miss R Branwhite British Telecom Mr C Shawyer British Telecom Mr D Hutton Atkins Telecom Braintree College Virgin Media Mr P Watts Connect (Quadrant Pipelines Ltd & Independent Pipelines Ltd) Mr Clive Waites G.T.C. Mrs J Harvey British Gas Connections Ltd Mrs R Fitzpatrick ES Pipelines Ltd Mrs R Welch Mowlem Energy Ltd Mrs E S Mortimer EPN South Highway services Mrs W Walker Mr Holdstock Mrs J James Mrs Sue King Mrs S Giles Mr Mike Bowles Mrs M Miller C/o Diane Harding Mrs J Clarke Network Rail Mrs R Mirecki Mrs Wakefield Mr G Waters Mrs E Vale Miss P Hagan Laura Ingles Miss B Dean Mrs M Prime Mrs A Barney Mr Roy Kingman Mrs D Long Mr Alan Cutts Mr J Couves Mandy Quinn Mrs M Webster Ms C Kaldani Mr John Boon Annette Leary Mrs Ann Rolls Jane Beven Mrs S Bonner Veronica Harman Mr David Ball Julia Smith Mr & Mrs Pudney Mrs N Sebastian Dunn Mr Neil Coughlan Mrs Brigitte Haig Mrs J Whittle Mrs Gaby Chick Joan Smith Mrs Margaret Stewart Betty Beal Ms Anita Sartain Mrs B O'Hare Mrs K Butler M Nunn Christine Barrett Mrs Juliet Walton A Joy Thea Campbell Interact Mr Simon Churly Mr Clive Ramsden Brenda Freshwater Pat Kent Mr N Harrington Mr A F Shelton Miss Susan Carlisle Mr K Radley Marianne Hatwell Ms M Houlding Miss Valerie Watson Mr Matt Matthews Mrs S Drury Mr Geoff Pattenden County Manager Mr Hardisty Kate Lowry Mrs C Pegley The Manager Sue Stephens Mr & Mrs G & A Burroughs Mr A Short Mr Gary Price Mrs Marina Metson Mrs M R Chapman Chris Jenkinson Mrs M Waring Mr David Fremlin Pam Cook Mr John Parfitt Ms Mary Johnson Karen Collop Colchester Quaker Housing Association Mr Nigel Oldacre Mr Derek Payne Mr Malcolm Batty Community Information Point/Chelmsford Library Mr Terry Rockall Tracy Corcoran Mrs P Harrington Mrs Jean Murphy Georgina Rhymes Mrs D Brooks Susan Clubley Mrs Kickols Mr Clive Norris Mr & Mrs John & Lucille Van Geest Place Jean Simmons Mrs Christine Deal Mrs Lorraine Francis Mrs Marilyn Clark Ms Jayne Kennedy Tracey McCormack Jacqueline Wilson Mr P Whitehead Mrs Maggie Hughes Aderyn Gillett RAD (Centre for Deaf People) Barbara Morrison Mrs Joyce Bryant Disability Essex Mr Jeff Dorley Kym Page Miss Pilgrim Mrs Pauline Marlow Jackie Clarke Mrs Jill Lloyd Mr Colin Strong Farleigh-in-Braintree Nick Shuttleworth Hazel Edridge Ms Diane Harding Brendan Walsh Mr John Hillman Lynne Zwink Miss Carrie Appleby Friends of Bocking Windmill The Samaritans Mrs Shirley Rose Marie Smith Mrs J Roughton Peggy Keeble Karen Berry The Vicar Ms Sue Stelfox Mr R Swan Mrs Valerie Goddard Rev B Arnold Mrs Shirley Blacketer Rev J W R Robinson Anthea Cooper Fr Anthony McKentey Mrs Valerie Ahern Mr C Keen Helen Wilson Mrs A Howard Marion Ripper Mons A Barrow Mr Jack Norwood Father J Farrell Rosemary Leak T & S Johnson Mr W A Watson Mr D Mann Linda Riley Rev J Blore Mrs Eve Newell Mrs Jane Coates Mrs Lorriane Smith Mr Reginald David Meade Mrs Sandra Howell Mr John Daldry E Murfitt Mrs Patricia Sally Cheek Mr T Walker Mr Terence Nicholass Mrs Ratnage Mr Nicholas Edmonds Mr P G Conway Mr Brooks Newmark MP Mr Robert Bellehewe Mr Martyn Bailey Miss Sue Reichert Mr & Mrs Jemison Mr A G Shaikh Mr Roy Potter All Saints & St Marys Rayne & Panfield Mr & Mrs Murkowski Mrs T Ferguson Mr Allan McCoan Rev J Richardson Mr & Mrs Simpson Rev S Northfield Ms Adelaide Taylor Rev P Meader Mr John Ashton Department for Education & Skills Mr Tony Mead Rev J E F Jasper Mr Britten Rev Father J Corbyn Mrs Frances Lindsay Rev J Hall Mrs Sherri Beresford Revd J Donaldson Mr Colin Bayliss R Harvey Mr Walter Petchey Rev P Grinyer Mr Ian Halliday Rev M Child Mr & Mrs Cope J F Williams Mr Geoff Tipping Rev C.A.J Jones Mr Donald Davies Mr K P Taylor Dr Richard Fordham Mr C B Bamforth Mr Nigel Bolland Mr P Vaidva Mr Roy Belsham Amog Havajra Mr John Pollard Rev N Warner Mr Anthony Edwards Christ Church Methodist & United Reform Church Mr P Walker Rev D Thompson Mr A Bourne Mr Pearson Cllr James Abbott Earls Colne Baptist Church Mr Philip Barlow Mr Andrew Knight Cllr Mrs J C Beavis Evangelical Church Cllr Elwyn Bishop Rev D E Ivey Mr Stephen Bolter Faulkbourne Parish Church Cllr Robert Bolton E Healey Mrs A Balcombe Mr C Smith Kerin Boylan Halstead Baptist Church Mr Barry Broyd Hatfield Peverel Methodist Church Cllr Graham Butland Mrs Helen Catley Mr Lionel Holmes Mr Roy Cavinder Mr Christopher Broadway C F Coughlan Mr Geoff Shaw Mr Nigel Edey Mrs Elizabeth Poole W P Edwards Mr Peter Fox Cllr Dr Robert Evans Mrs Ann Grice Cllr Anthony Everard Mr Robert Crayston Mr David Finch Miss Ann Wood Cllr John Finbow Mr Saward Cllr T J W Foster Mr Christopher Butler Mrs Beryl Gage Mrs Sylvia Craig Mr Michael Gage Ms Elizabeth Humphrey Cllr Mrs Margaret Galione Mr Patrick Pawsey Mr Martin Green Mr Stephen Morton Mr John Gyford Mrs Diane Scillitoe Mr Michael Haslam Mr Roy Cleaver Mr Paul Heath Mr John Jessop Mr Philip Hughes Mr Simon Birnbaum Mr Arthur Jenner Mrs Kathleen Little Cllr Michael Lager Mr George Warner Mr Michael Lynch Mr Anthony Couling Cllr David Mann Mr Barry Lewis Ms Jacqueline Martin Mr & Mrs Dunmore Mr Alan Millam Mr Simon Attwood Cllr Robert Mitchell Mr Peter Tydeman Cllr Lady Patricia Newton Miss Janet Leng Cllr Mrs Jacqueline Pell Ms Cherryl Ardley Mr John Pilgrim Miss Colleen Campany Mrs Joy Reekie Mrs Pamela Parish Cllr D M Reid Ms Ann Garrett Cllr Douglas Rice Mr & Mrs Parsley Cllr Mrs Wendy Schmitt Mr Mark Bell Cllr Anthony Shelton Mr Paul Evans Cllr Mrs Gabrielle Spray Mr K Grinstead Cllr Miss Moia Thorogood Mr D Gronland Mr Richard Tincknell Mr R Haines Mr Peter Turner Ms D Hardy Mr Simon Walsh Gen Rowell Mr R Bucknell Mr K Hughes Mrs S Carlisle Mr Paul Foster Mr Dave Arnott Mr Phil Howorth Mr I Cass Mr Anthony Seabrook Mr R Cook Martin Grant Homes Ltd Mrs Judy Cuddeford Mr Peter Smith Mr B A Cutmore Mr B Day Hunnable Investments Ltd. Mr Nic Rumsey Mrs Susan Fuller Mr Paul McCarthy Mr & Mrs B.P. & P.C. Edwards Mr Richard Hawkes Mr Jeffrey Babbs P Parsons Mrs Carol East Rev M Shrubsole Mr Peter Hine Revd Sharon Mills Mrs Carol Braddy Mr T Eccles Mr Clive Leslie Mrs Susan Lees Mr Eric Hobbs Mr Bill Gustar Ancient Monuments Society Mrs M Disley The Council for British Archaeology Mrs A Daisley The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings Mr J Baker The Georgian Group Mr C Duncan The Victorian Society Ms M Trappitt The Twentieth Century Society Mr G Olney Mr Graham Fernandez Mrs K Roebuck IFF (GB) Ltd Mrs A Mitchelson Mr S Heading Mrs A Green David Walker Chartered Surveyors Mr A Jones Mr Andrew Hull Mr P Anderson Mr Alex Anderson Mr J Smith A D Brown Mrs M Nicholls Mrs Nicki Burton Mr S Young Mr John Palombi Miss K McGrory Mr John Chase Miss R Cowles Kirsty Walker Mrs M Rumsey Mr Gwynn Stubbings Mr G Pocock Mr Derek Stebbing Mrs J Herring Mr Anthony Dawson Mrs B Ferland Mr A Goody Mrs S Spittlehouse Mr Doug Kibblewhite Mrs P Smith Ms Melanie Jones Mr Tony Charles Laura Ross Clare Hutchinson Mr Paul Bird Lindsey Backster Essex Wildlife Trust Mr D Bigg Mr K Taylor Janet Brown Community Commander Canon John Brown East of England Strategic Health Authority George Burrows Mr Graham Seward Robert Carter Mr Jack Sweeney Abbi Coldwell Mr Eric Smith Mrs Lorraine Collins Agnes Bishop Mr Lee Crabb Mr Malcolm Bryan Mr Graham Eavery Marion Williams Zoe Middleton Rev David Dickens Mrs Norma Huxter Ms K Mansfield Helena Goodwin Mr D Anthony Dorothy Lodge Mrs G Argue Mr Tim Lucas Ms Brenda Baker Mr J Macgregor Ms F Bodle Mr Joshua Marks Ms C Bradshaw Mr Alan Mickley Mr D Meechan Ms Leanne Mills Mrs V Hackett Mr P Mitham Mr D Forrest Rachel Parratt Mr J Brace Ms K Radley Mr A Smith Ms Eve Reid Mrs J Green Pat Roberts Mrs C Edwards Ross Saxton-Davis Mrs J Bartley Mr Mark Sexton Mr A Wright Mr David Sharp Mr D Iles Mrs Joy Sheppard Mr A Richbell Mr Robert Taylor Mr A Horne Mr T Steed Mr G Stollar Mrs J Wright Mr D Sutton Mrs J Walthew Angela Verghese Mrs J Argent Ms P Whitney Mrs S Walker Mr Alaba Banjo Mrs A Balcombe Mrs Pamela West Mr K Butcher Mrs J Seakins Mrs G Cant Ms Aimee Cannon Mr K King Mr Jason Lindsay Mr Adrian Corder-Birch Eilish Loftus Mr M Letch Mr Chris Papworth Mrs D Hilliard Mr Mike French Mrs K Berry Mr Ben Gibson Mrs J Eady Mr Gary Duncan Mrs Lynn Exley Mrs Sarah Webber Mr A Evans Ms Vilma Walsh Mrs C Hamp Mrs Anne Taylor Mr M Squire Kate Jennings Mrs V Holmes Mrs S J Mott Ms J Dawson Mr Robert Smith Mr R Bradshaw Messrs Ramsey Mrs A Jolley Ms Kate Matthews Mrs V Burrows Mr & Mrs D Jones Mr P Baxter Mrs S Threadgold Mrs J Beavis MoD Police Headquarters Mr D Porth The Inland Waterways Association Cllr J Pike Essex Waterways Ltd Cllr D Louis Forestry Comission England Mrs Helen Cook Freight Transport Association Mrs Denise Humphries Mr Hughie Smith Mr Roger Bradhsaw Help The Aged Mr L Broadhurst Chrys Rampley Rampley Ms Carolyn McSweeney Sue Pennell Coggeshall Heritage Society Rachel Stone Mr A Waight Ms S Hill Mr Lyndon Hopkins L Vanderberg Head of Humanities Department Nhi Huynh-Ma Essex Ambulance Service Head of Humanities Department Ms N Blaken Mrs Hewes Mr Michael Wilks Head of Humanities Department Mrs B Raybould Head of Humanities Department Mr Mike Murkin Data Capture Assistant Mr J F Sheldrake Director Mrs J Halfhide Railtrack Property (Town Planning) Miss J Simmons Fund-raiser Mrs C Carlisle Garden History Society Mrs B Temple Mr Mike Benner Mr A Corder-Birch Mr S Kirby Mrs J Turner Mrs J Cole Coggeshall PC Mr D Huxter Mrs H Waterfield Mr T Steel Mrs F J Wells Mrs Petra Ward Mr D Williams Mr D Whipps Ms L Miller Mr M Leslie The RSPB S Butler-Finbow Fields in Trust Mr R Belsham Mrs J Beavis N Belton Mrs H Fraser J T Bendall Diane Jacob Rev Will Newman Mrs J Clemo Father C Maher Mrs P O Player Mr R Bucknell Miss S E Mann Rev P Need Mrs Teresa Ulrich Mr L Horsnell Mrs L Rowe Mons G Read Mr I P Bradley Rev Father D S Reynish Bed Mrs Jessica Dawson Mr Cyril Bamforth Mr Colin Robertshaw Mr Roderick Lane Lane Mr Roger Upward Rev S Lloyd Mr P J Watson St Peter's Church Mrs S Parker The Rev'd Philip Banks Mrs R Leeder St Bartholomew C of E Church Mrs B Fry The Vicar Mrs L White Mr Bill Brown Dr B Yallop The Chapel Mrs D George The Parish Church of St Michael Mr M Fitt Mr T Andrews Mr J Quick Edna Chalmers Mr Gordon Mussett Rev P A Andrirnatos Mr Will Austin Mrs H Crysell Mrs T Nicholl P Blios Mr Chris Turner White Notley Parish Church Ms M Farrant Mrs A Coleman Mrs Claire Ebeling Mr D Malins Mr Chris Turner Mr Brian Morgan Mr Rich Cooke Diocese of Chelmsford Ms Karen Syrett Mr Andrew Fido Mr Derek Lawrence J B Wicks Mr Stewart Patience Granta Housing Society Limited Mr Paul Morris Sanctuary Housing Association Carol Horlock Mr Charles Nash K Adams Mr Peter Biggs Mr Henry Aldridge Mr Arthur Hedges Mr Ernest Andrews Littman & Robeson Ms. H Archibald Mr S J Staines D. K Athanasiadis Blackwater/Anglia Housing Association S Attenborrow Mr Peter Court Mrs J Ball Mrs P Bowers Mr Banyard G A Boyle Mr David Barclay Braintree Electroplaters Ltd. A P Bulpin Mr J Still Mr P T Tyrie Mrs C Burden Mr Paul Foster Mrs L Button Jamie Kemp Mr J Grange Mr P Baxter Mrs Karen Gregory Mr C Beard Mr & Mrs Griffiths Katharine Fletcher Mr Dave Gronland Mr J Cornwell Mr J Gunn Mr B Bell Mrs J Hadley Mr Julian Hall Nayland Building Design Mr P J Hamilton Mrs I Newby Hanover Housing Association Mr S Nice Mrs Doreen Harman Miss K Cafferkey Mr & Mrs Owen and Jean Harrison Mr S Norris Mr S G Hasler Mr Jonathan Wilde Mr Steven Hathurst Mr A Panton Mrs R Hawes Mrs Margaret Parmenter Mr P Helps Dr. D G H Patey Mr D Hicks Mrs D A Patey Mr V Hodgson Mr K Pearson Mr & Mrs L J Holt Mr D R Smith Housing 21 Mr Paul Gibbs Mr Chris Howlett A Evans Mr Paul Hudson Mrs Pilgrim Mr Alfred John Hughes Ellie Smith Mr P Gratton Mr A Cole Peter Hutton Mr Brian Smith Ian M. Edwards Associates Mr C Cooper K Jermyn Rosa Etherington Mr M Jack Mr P Craig Ruth McCarey Mr P Crowe Cllr J Baugh R H Curtis Mr M Perlstrom Mr M Scoot B Bell Mr D Clarke Mr Ian Johnson Ms M Ewel Mr & Mrs Kennedy Mr John Haugh Mr & Mrs Kent Mr Sebastian Hanley Mr Kent Mr Bernard Digby E F King Mr E A Donnelly Mr & Mrs Knopp Mr M Duffill Mr Ricky Lamb East Thames Housing Group Mr L Martin Ms S Dicker Mr Phillip Little Mrs B Ellison Mr Brain Legan Mr Peter Cassidy Ms Rose Freeman Mr Richard Hockey Mr P Lomax Estuary Housing Association Mrs Susan Lord Mr & Mrs E G Ewers Mr L P McCartney G S Cass Mr J Macrae Mr D Fegesse Mr I C Terry BSc. ARICS. Mr T J Portway Mr Nigel Brooke R F Wacey Ms J L May Mr A Quinlan Mr John McGlashan R F Herrington FRICS. Mr O McKenna Mr M Harris A R McLeod FRICS Mrs M M Ratcliffe Norwood Mr J Reeves Mr M Bowen Mr A Reynolds Mr & Mrs M & P Middleton Amanda Brown Mr I Mitchell A G Roberts Mobile Operators Association Rowbottom Developments Ltd. D J Laver Mr M Runnacles Mr G Roberts Mrs J Russell NACRO Salvation Army Housing Association G Sansum Cllr Lene Shepherd Mr S Saward Mr Malcolm Dunn Mr P Schwier Mr David Hume James Sims-Williams Cllr David Bebb Mr Dan Skeates Mr Fred Swallow Mr M L Smith Ms Rosemary O'Shea Mrs J Smith Cllr Sandra Howell Mr David Smith Cllr John Elliott Mr Colin Smith Cllr Janet Money Mr Richard Smith Ms Lucy Barlow Mr C A Richardson Mr Stephen Lambourne C Storey MRICS. Mr Trevor McArdle Springboard Housing Group MR TERRY DIXON Mr Liam Boyd Moiz Khanbhai Mr I W Steel Mr Graeme Free Mr B J Fleet T Brown Mr H Parkinson Mr Bruce Hanley Mr D B Gale Mr Phil Benns Mr P Nicklin Mrs Christine Ann Eliason G S Oliver Phil Sturges The Right Reverend John Gladwin Mr Richard Ramsey Mr D Glasson Mr Glynn Parsley Mr Kevin Godfrey Mr David Bull Mr J Capworth Mr Ian Poole Ms D Carson Mr Richard Paczko Dr G E Chapman Mr & Mrs K Green Mr Clark Mr Ian Anderson Suffolk Housing Society Ltd. Marks Tey Consortium Mr D Sullivan Town and Country Development (Essex) Ltd Mr J M Summerskill L Boxall Mr V Swallow Andrew Martin Associates R Sweetman Mr Adam Smith Mr R B Tattersall Mr Jim Holder Miss L Nelson Mr Stephen Austin Miss M J Eskins C/O Lisa Arber Mr G W Tickner Maurice Young T D Harbord Angela Schembri Mr C Tivey Mr Stephen Rolph Mr Provan Mr Kevin Fraser Mr Trundle Ms Sara King Mrs T Tulley Mr Ian Robottom Ms A Turner Mr Ian Hawkins Mr Andy Lawson Mr D Gowers B P Walker Mr Jon Clay The Ven. A Cooper Mr Paul Ryland PlanningPolicy Mr David Alton Mrs Margaret Dennis Mr Chris Strickland Katherine Blake Countryside Properties Plc. Mr Ken Squibb Mr Andrew Dodgson Mr Sean Millar Messrs Ramsey Mr Brian Tann Dean Byford & Sarah Charlton Mr Anthony Meyer Sam Cook Mrs Elizabeth Edey Mrs Steed Cllr John McKee Mrs Susan McCrea Mr D Lawrence Emma Succamore & John Pennell Emma Succamore & John Mrs Giles Hodges Pennell Mr John Lovric Mr & Mrs C Poulter Mr S.T. Rhenius Emma Laws Mr Andrew Epsom Mrs Norma Dases Mr Chris Dale Mr D Holmes Mr John Todhunter Ms H Holmes mr robin purchas Belinda Hoste Ms T Turner Mr Michael Hutley Mr Gareth Knight Mrs Chapman G Bell Mrs V Turner Mr Kenneth Logue Mr John Redgwell Mr Martin Tyrrell A & V Chapman Elaine Vashi Mr & Mrs Falzarano Mr James Salmon Mr and Mrs F J Kiddle Mr William Clarke Mrs P Webb Mrs E Smith Mr & Mrs R Brown Victoria Adams Mrs Lilian Springett Mandy Gill D Watkins Mr H Humphries F Sheldrake Mr Gary O'Doherty Mr Stephen Haygreen Mr J B Bowyer Mr and Mrs L Sutton K T Bonnage Mrs Smith Mr Colin Bates Mr and Mrs A & B Polson Mrs D Hilliard Cllr Malcolm Fincken Reverend Robert Beaken S A Wright Equality & Human Rights Commission C Howling Miss DO NOT USE Joanna Hardwick I Chinnery B Vermilio Mr and Mrs R M French Mr B Mann Mr and Mrs Nield Marks Farm Partnership Mr Crome Faris Barlow Mr Steve Price Mr David Barker Mrs Sue Rouse Gemma Tromans Mr Wigg Mr Aaron Dixey Patricia Pead Mr Des Wilson Lisa Pickering Mr Robin Meehan Mr A Palmer Mr Ron Elliston Mr and Mrs Turner Mr Geoffrey Cohen Mr K Gipps Mr G H Watson Mr and Mrs S K Farvous Firstcity S Hood Mr Hamish Feldy Ms Lindsey Read Mr Vernon Weller Mr William Allan Mrs Caroline Cawson Mrs Charmaine Dean Mr Rob Chapman Mr Moutimer Mrs W Y Hearn Mrs Linda May Rachael, Stephen, Kai Hart-Bryan Mrs Barbara Chinnery Mr William Waples Mrs P.A Baldwin Adele Waples Mrs J Peaston Mr and Mrs Puttock Mrs S Bradbrook Mr and Mrs R F Allen Mr and Mrs A and J Shuttlewood Mr and Mrs J Braybrook J Bowtell Linda Sharpe Ms Sharon May Mr Richard Parsons Clarke Mr and Mrs A Thornton Mr Paul Brown Mrs C Bateman Mrs Daryll Golding c/o Boydens Mr and Mrs K and P Ahearn Mr Philip Howorth Mr Adrian Dunningham Construct Reason Ltd Mr VJ Townsend Mr David Cooper J A Fuller Capel House Property Trust Ltd. G Crow Mr & Mrs Clayden Mr B Wilkinson Fairview New Homes Mr ML Ciame Mr W Fisher Ms Josie Roel Mr B Goodson Mr and Mrs Rowe C Doe The Rev'd & Mrs C W Danes Mr R J Suckling Mr and Mrs Smith Mr Richard Long Miss Amy Potter Mr Paul Hales Mr John Ellson Mr G Tanner Mrs W Runham Mrs Nicola Bickerstaff Mrs R Hall CHELMSFORD Diocese Board Of Finance AC Harrington Mr Bethell Mr Stephen John Bolter Messrs Smith & Turpin Miss Davinia Venton Mr & Mrs Gerhard Mr Robert Wright Mr P M Ratcliffe Cllr Eric Lynch Executors of Late Robert Hills Ms S Roper Strutt and Parker (Farms) Ltd Ms Alison Talkington Robert Brett & Sons Ltd Ms Cheryl Gerald Unknown Mrs Karen Scott Mr R Hunt Ms Lynn Green R F Chapman Mr Michael Leach Mr James Thompson Mrs Jane Coleman The Trustees of St Mary's Field Mrs V Bruce Mr H Ralling M. V Anderson Ms Deborah Ruffel M Prime Mr James Thompson Cllr. Mike Banthorpe Client839 Mrs C McCarthy Mr Stephen Norris Mr R Wiltshire Harold Good Farm Trust Mrs Sian Derbyshire Granville Developments Mr Richard Tunnicliffe Bellway/Raven/CML/Chelmsford Diocesan Board of Finance Mr. Francis Thompson Elderly Housing and Care Home Providers Mr Steve Hancocks Land Securities Trillium Mrs L Warwick Tesco Stores Ltd Countryside Properties Limited Unknown John Pease Mr S Wildman Mr John Benson A Cockrell Mr John Schonert Colne Valley Golf Club The Trustees of the Northern Estate Trust R W Spencer and Son Ltd Exors of Nigel Vaizey & Co Owners Tarmac Ltd The Trustees of the Martlets Estate Mr S Mortimer Mr C Porter Unknown Unknown Webber/Dixon/Smith P J French Messrs Wiffin R R & E S Ward Messrs J N & D Cousins Mrs T Lee Messrs Price Mr & Mrs Fancy Cressing Park Holdings Mr D J Hosford Messrs Hubbard East Essex Hunt Mr Dennis Hodds Mrs Z Napier Mrs Linda Palmer Strutt and Parker (Farms) Ltd Ms J Ward Newton Family Mrs Clements Repairbrook Ltd Mrs C Woodhouse Mrs S Brierly Mr and Mrs J Conner Mr Cork Mr and Mrs Janet and John Potton Mr Goodchild Ms Sandra Frost Mr W Buckley O O'Neill Mr Stuart Cock C Reynolds Mrs Hayden Margaret Somerville Hunwick Engineering Ltd Mr and Mrs Van Gelder Mr DJ and RHA Pannell Mrs D McIlroy Braintree Leisure Ltd Mrs P Percival Galliard Homes Ltd unknown Greene King Mr Stephen Lloyd Mr Billie Hayes Mr Dean Tabone Mr Stuart Cock Mr Karl Healey Mrs Pauline Hennessey Mr Rod Lane Mid Essex Primary Care Trust Mrs J Bonnington Construct Reason Ltd Mr Gary Goodhew Mr G Bober Mrs I R Collett CHELMSFORD Diocese Board Of Finance Mr R Chaplin C F E Hill Georgina Grayland Premdor Mrs D Hunt Tesco Stores Ltd Mr and Mrs Keeble Consortium of Landowners in respect of Maltings Lane Mr Jack Prime Tesco Stores Ltd A Phillips Swan Hill Homes Mrs Pauline Ellis Braintree Leisure Ltd Dr Lesley Cooper James Developments Mr Kevin Willcox Higgins Homes Ltd Mr D Leverett Mr C Young Mrs J S Cain Cemex Mr David Harvey Bermac Properties plc Mr J A Clarke Mr J Andrews Mrs Beverley Steel Mr C S Gosling Mr Tony Strudwick Mr G Lanza Miss Emilie Bills Redrow Homes (Eastern) Ltd Mr Moiz Khanbhai Swift Developments M R W Button Ulting Overseas Trust Mr and Mrs Ellison Galliard Homes Ltd Ms Kathleen Cole The Crown Estate Office Mr Steven Miller Mr N Barton Ms Sue Spinks Mr and Mrs Thompson Mr E A White Councillor Barbara Collar Mr C Taylor Ms Marie Hodds Mr Brian Hagan Mr Iain Ashford Mr Iain Paton Mr Patrick Pawsey Mr Paul McConnell Mr & Mrs J White Mr Chris Long Councillor Diana Garrod Mr S Goodfellow Miss H Bonnington Ms Jemma Ferridge Ms Angela Melia Mr Stuart Anderson Mr B Callow Mrs T Plane Mr John Camp Mrs L.A Edwards Ms Nicola Little Mr A.T. Pearce Mr Ian Bonnington Mr Carl Edwards Mrs M L Gardner Karen Bridge Mr Paul Hart Mr Howard Bills Mr Roger Duffin R G Barker Ms Katy King Mr W.P. Clayton Mr John Getty Mrs L O'Leary Mr Adam Holland Mrs D Goate Cressing Park Holdings Mr S Brailey Mr Karl Gibson Mr R Allen Mrs Linda Portch Mr & Mrs Burton Dr Irene Bainbridge Mr A Ryman Mr William Palmer Denise Howard Mr Ian Norton BM & J Bush Mrs C Beavis Mr A Walsh Mr George Worster Mr David McCartney Mrs Winifred Thomas Mr & Mrs Tushaw Mr Scott Billson Mrs Stephanie Bills Mr JA Beavis Ms Natasha Agombar Mr Lee Harding Riddleston Mr Vernon Rolls W J Body Ms Sophie Ansell Mr Philip Welch A Williams L A Jordan C Wright Mr A Bonnington M Clifford Mr Jonathan Wicks Mrs Y.P McDonnell Mr and Mrs P and A Culling E Robinson Mrs Emine Weaire D Pailter Mr Graham Legg J Bateman Braintree LSP Executive Group A Gladden Mrs Gina Legg S Jeffrey Robert Hill, Executors of Late J Peacock Mr John Evans S Holland Banbridge A Austin Gemma Grimes R D Chinnery Mr D Porth Mr Keith Newbitt Mr T A Raybould Mrs Valerie Ockelford Mr Alan Carr Mrs Dorothy Watson Cllr A W Hayward Mr David Lee Mrs A Howes Ms B.G. Rice Mr Andrew Temperton Mark Wilson Mrs Julie Watts Mr John Huggett Mr & Mrs Spurling Mrs S Allfrey Mr Terry Brooks Mr Mark Fisher Unex Technical Services D Andrews Miss Ann Wood Mr and Mrs Field Mr Kenneth Davies Mr David Blaylock Mrs Susan Fuller Ms L Hockley Mr P Ogburn Susan Fisher Mr Richard Ramsey Ms Rachel Whitfield Mr and Mrs Spry Mr Brian Joscelyne Mr Hicks Mr S Braster Mrs Jennifer Smith Mr Ashley Spurling Cllr Chris Siddall Ms & Mr Smith & Passfield Mrs Janet Duncan Clive Walker & Michelle Leading Mr & Mrs Cruickshank Mr David Higgins DJ & JG Barnes Mrs Tyler Mr Neil Hodges Mr Adrian Dunningham Mr & Mrs Watson Halstead Residents Association Mrs J M Parker Sarah Allison Mr & Mrs Thorogood Countryside Properties Mrs K Guimas Mr Peter Sale Mrs Nicola Blyth David Paul C A Twohey Brian Wright Mr Anthony Wren Mrs Joan Watson Miss Laura Davies The Owner/Occupier Mr Graham Roper J.M & J.E Rayner Mr Richard Quinnell The Owner/Occupier Mr David Newman The Owner/Occupier Mr & Mrs B V Collins Mr George Harris Mr & Mrs Brothers The Owner/Occupier Amanda Game The Owner/Occupier K J Owen Miss Katy Humphreys RJ & BM O'Brien The Owner/Occupier Miss Burford Mr Bowler Mr Stanley Barrett Mr Derek Ray Mr & Mrs Webb Mr Anthony White Mr & Mrs Murton Miss Charlotte Ward M Eymere Mr & Mrs Plumb Mrs Melanie A'Lee Mr & Mrs Clark The Owner/Occupier Mrs F Hawkswell Mr James Stevens Mr & Mrs Merton Mr Denis Elavia Mr Warren Gray Mr G R Nield The Occupier Mr Jonathan Mills Mr T Milburn Mr Colin Pharoah Mrs S Butcher Mr Peter Cook Mr Alan Bodfield Mr and Mrs Romeli-Lee N & S Wischhusen Mr Jay Coleman Mr M A Hill P.J. Brazier Mrs Jenny Wilson Mrs Patricia Singleton Ms Gail Jackson Mrs Nicola Bryant Miss Diane Leech B Bastiaansen & G Gildea Mr & Mrs P Warren Mr John James Mr T Robinson Yvonne Game M Wyatt Mrs S M Dowd Keeley LeBan Mrs S D Harris Miss M A Geeves Mrs Louise Youngman Mr Paul Woodridge Mr Derek R Middleton Sharon Leader Miss Susan Burton Mr Paul Belton Mr & Mrs P Sillis Mr J D Darrell Mrs Ann Jones Mrs Burgess Mr & Mrs Gordon-Hancock Mr & Mrs Teeder Mrs Olive Crabtree Mr Ian Marsden Mrs Patricia Sullivan Mr D Hills Mrs Lynn Orrin T J Sheppard Mr John Hopkins Mr Mike Barritt Mr & Mrs Dover Mr Mike Cole Mr PG Ratcliff Mr Jeremy R Spalding Donna Wickham Wickham Mr & Mrs S Uden Secretary of State for Transport Mr Timothy Leahy Mr Dino Athan Miss Karen Boroughs S A Pearman Mrs Nicky Wyatt Cllr Patricia Lee Mrs Beryl Bailey Mrs Emma Frankish Mr Martin Arnold Mr Johnathan Hodgkin Mrs Maureen Bodfield Mr Graham Hughes Miss Heather Turner Mr John Hills Miss Beverley Wallman Mr Nye Mr Nicholas Scales Mr P J Cole Mrs Christine Bealer Mr Anthony Middlebrook Arqiva Mr David Golding Mrs Hazel Deal Mr John Nash Mr Matthew Morton Mr Tim Bluff Mr Neil Anderson Mr Carl Hockey Mr David Uffindell Ms Jane Turner Mr Colin Shead Mr John Lefever Mr Joseph Devenny Mr James Cutting Mr Anthony Pitt Mr Robert Frost Mrs Mary Devenny Mr Mark Wells Mr Luke Merriman Mr Mike Goodson Mr John Chambers Mr Akin Durowoju Mrs Joan Chambers Ms Susan Ramage Mrs Veronica Crowe Mr Terry Fuller Mrs D Callow Chelmer Canal Trust Miss Lucy Burton The Church Commissioners Mr Kim Burton Mr Tony Middleton Mr Kieran Burton Health & Safety Executive (Essex) Miss Lindsay Branch Fields in Trust Mr Frederick Twindell Mrs Pamela Twidell Women's National Commission Mr David Steel Mr Geriant Hughes Miss Charlotte Steel Priti Patel Mrs Pamela Sawyer Mrs Jean Burnside Mr Eric Sawyer Ms Hannah Bizoumis Mr Kenneth Steel Mr Jay Coleman Mrs Audrey Steel Mrs Lorraine Pearson Mr Robert McBurney Mrs Karen James Mr Russell Thompson Mr David Hill Miss Toni Williams Mr David Nichols Mrs Margaret Wren Mr Tony White Mr Terence Sheehan Miss Katy Eggleton Miss Catherine Hayward Mrs Ann Brench Mr Donald Harvey Mr Steve Draper Mr Stephen Archer Mrs Ellen Game Mr Paul Goold Mr David Game Witham 1st Scout Group Mr Bernard Palmer Friends of Braintree Mr Michael Perry Mr Ernest Griffin Ms Angela Melia Mr Kenneth Gair Mr Roger Jenkins Mrs Shirley Gair Mr Eric Saltmarsh Mr Connor Gair Mrs Jacqueline May Mr Callum Gair Mrs Karen Pears Mrs Cynthia King Mrs Kate Ashton Miss Susan Frost Mr Geoffrey Dench Mr John Green Mrs Gladys Hayes Mrs Hazel Green Mrs Patricia Furse Ms Jenny Taylor Mr William Furse Mr and Mrs Bradshaw Mr Peter Maryott Mrs Claire Williams Mrs Julie White Ms Eileen Carr Mr William White Mr Robert Moore Consultation Service Mr and Mrs Brian Tompsett Mr Martin Fox Mr Luke Raistrick Mr James French MR I.W KIDDY Mrs Carol Elaine Green Essex County Council Mr Craig Chambers Mr Gyan Ludhor Mrs Hazel Ray Ms Helen De La Rue Miss Rebecca Taylor Mrs Sue Bull B Gingo Miss AR McDonnell Mr Vincent Dunne Mr and Mrs Pink Mr Arthur Marshall Mr Frank Ladkin Mrs Michele Webb Mrs Abi Olumbori Mrs Sharon Goodfellow mr tom fryer Mrs Jennifer Gibbons Mrs Rona Gottesmann Mr John Kelly Diana May Mrs Jennifer Kelly Ms Pamela Jane Mr Paul Gibbons Ms Belinda Stoker Mr Mark Austin Mr Matthew Payne Mr Scott Pearman Mr Kirk Wells Mr James jenkins Mrs Linda Smith Mr G R Watt Mr Lawrence Cox Mr Ray Lesnik Mr Panton Mr Tony Rowell Mrs Rory Arnese Mrs Bradshaw Mr A Galley D Garrod Mr Mike Eccles Mrs S Cocks Mr Richard Ford Dr Roslyn Elliott c/o Andrew Martin Associates Mr William Bonwick Mr Dale Greetham Mr & Mrs Stephen and Joyce Brownsell Mr Sean McGrath Mr Dan Mason Ms Emma Powell mrs petra ward Mr JF Hume Mrs M F Lewis Ms Christine Cope Mr & Mrs K and M Robins Mr S Hall Miss Kerry Clements L & JC Sherman Mr Terry Clements Mr Jim Konig Mr Simon Van Minnen Liz Pollock Worley Mr Frank Ramsden Mr Steve Gittins Mrs Karen Brasier Mr Paul Ambrose Mr Josh Brasier Mr Bryan Baker Mr Matthew Brasier Ms Sofia Khatcherian Mrs Cherry Quinnell Mr Alan Holden Mr Michael Button Miss Finola O'Neill Mr George Barlow Mr & Mrs Edwin and Jean Baker Mrs Melanie Harris S C Tucker Mrs G Noble Mr & Mrs Ron and Yvonne Laity Mr Reginald Franklin Mr John Parish Mr Kevin Goodwin Mr John Grant Mrs Diane Fletcher Mr Trevor Johnson Mr & Mrs R Moriarty Mr David Mortimer Mr & Mrs G Money Mr John Ashley Ms Sarah Lewis HSBC CRE Julie Amsden Mr Jim Konig Mr & Mrs Eldridge Mr Tom Hyde Mr G J Trew Mr Simon Dixon Smith Mr Ian Smith Mrs Jacqueline Smith Mr Martyn Richardson Geraldine Tate Mr Tony Isaac Mrs Humphreys Susan Betts Mrs S M Lam Mr & Mrs Pluck Pam Beckwith Mr & Mrs B Barrett Park Stores N Wing Grove House Mr & Mrs Caplen CB Richard Ellis Mr Ron Kidman Trigina Ltd Marie Southwell Mr A Pearce Mr Anthony Boast Essex Strategic Health Authority Carly Bradshaw Ramsden Mills Mr Robert Brown Mrs Carolyn Johnson Gary and Caroline Martin Mr David Game Mr G S Gillman Mr Ian Coward Mr & Mrs Cooper Ms Mary J Waite Mr & Mrs David and Anna Game Mr Peter Mercer MBE Ian and Sally Slack Mr George Kasabov Mr Stephen Dormer Mr Tony Bishop 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

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 th January 2013 to 22 nd February 2013 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.