Comments received by email after the meeting
Email your comments here (we will not publish your name)
Click here for the map


1.In relation to the 2 sites [1] SIB4 Land Adjacent to 14 Swan Street and [2] SIB1 Land West of Queen Street, i would point out that the Parish Council Planning Committee has unanimously voted against these proposed sites and this was unanimously endorsed by the Parish Council  - see Planning Committee minutes of 21 May 2010 [point 8 ] and Parish Council minutes of 9 June 2010 [point 68].
 
2.A petition of affected households showed an overwhelming majority of 85 % against development of these 2 sites.There were also numerous supporting letters and e mails against development of these 2 sites.
Both the Parish Council and Braintree District Council have copies of these documents.
 
Should anyone wish to argue that the situation may have changed since May last year,indeed it has.First,there are now an unprecedented number of unsold houses in Potter Street and Queen Street, therefore there
is absoulutely no need to build any more .Secondly,given the intention of this government radically to shift the balance of power under planning legislation in favour of developers,the Village amenity land needs as much protection as it can get.  
 
It is instructive to note the strikingly emphatic tone of the relevant Planning Committee minute and I quote - "The Committee unanimously supported the representations from the residents and it was agreed to write to BDC objecting "forcefully" to the three proposed sites " [the third site being at Prayors Hill].


My table at the meeting thought:
There was agreement that the Village Design Statement is a valid and well presented document that should be used as the basis for the future of the village
Tanners is too far from the village centre and people did not want to extend the village envelope
Using funds from the Premdor development to redevelop the village hall site into a leisure center / village centre. It is in the middle of the village so it would be accessible
The Village Design Statement is an important precedent
Premdor is the key development that all others depend upon
A general need for more shops
Improving sustainability so that shops survive
We did not answer the key question - what type of new developments do we want or need
Tanners as a possible site for new leisure facilities
Need to create local employment
Too much housing will make the village more of a 'commuter village'
Need to find out what BDC propose regarding regeneration
Expansion of roads before building
Build a visitor coach park
Need to improve public transport
Tanners to remain in commercial use - possible live/ work facilities
No need to expand village envelope - not least until all other sites are developed
Are we building a village for other people to come into
No to more flats
 

I wish to object to the two sites proposed Swan Street SIB4 and Queen Street SIB1.
 
The proposals seem speculative and more houses are not needed in the vicinity.  After all there have been 4 houses for sale in fairly close proximity to the sites for some time.  A 5th has just gone on the market.
 
I support the principle of development of the Premdor and Rockways SIB2 sites.  But I have grave concerns that any planning gain will be insufficient to adequately upgrade the infrastructure to cope with the impact of the development.
 
I support the principle of development of the Tanner's Dairy site SIB3 but am concerned that appropriate site remediation (given prior use) will make development uneconomic and therefore there will be little planning gain for the community. 
 
I do not support the proposal at Prayors Hill SIB6, which I believe is speculative and without sufficient merit for the whole community.  I think development of this site would have adverse impact on its Special Landscape characteristics.
 
I do not believe there have been any changes that merit reconsideration of the village envelope near the Swan Public House.  This site has historical features and the rear land natural features that need to be preserved.  Again I do not see sufficient demand to justify over development for pure commercial gain.
 
I would be grateful if the Council could take account of my comments as part of it's deliberations.