Consultation responses

If you would like to view the consultation responses, please see the links below.

Great Saling/ Bardfield Saling

Cathryn Carlisle

Herkstead Green Bungalow
Cornish Hall End

I think Bardfield Saling would benefit, being part of a larger parish. New comers already contact Great Salings clerk with problems, not knowing that Bardfield Saling has a clerk

Michael Baker

Merle Cottage
13Grove Villas
Gt Saling

I have no objects but think it is up to the residents of Bardfield Saling to decide if the want to join with Gt Saling.

Diane Greenwood

20 Grove Villas
Great Saling

On balance it seems to be a logical progression as the two villages are already linked.
I believe that Bardfield Saling would benefit from greater inclusion in the local government process; for example a greater representation in matters that come under the purview of a Parish Council. There is already one Parish Councillor from Bardfield Saling on the Gt Saling PC.

Philip O'Reilly

Hi Trees,
New Green
Bardfield Saling,

Following the comments made by M George Holmbury, New Green,Bardfield Saling. It needs to be made clear to ALL what the cost (financial) will be to each home owner once a joint Parish Council was set up.








Jackie Allan

5 Foxmead

1.  The proposal to extend the Witham Central ward up the A12 towards Rivenhall End

I agree with including the Eastways industrial estate.  It is de facto part of the Witham industrial area.   I do not agree with including the next field up to and including Burghey Brook.  This will simply infill and the small green area between Rivenhall End and Witham will be further eroded.  Rivenhall and Rivenhall End are very different in character to Witham, and proud of their own identity; it is important to preserve this.

2.  The proposal to extend the Witham Central ward north of the railway line to incorporate the new housing development and part of the golf course. 

I object to the extension of the Witham boundary - this opens the way for further building to erode the green belt between Witham and Rivenhall, and threatens to destroy the character of Rivenhall village by turning it into a suburb of Witham.

John Macrae

London Road
Rivenhall End

1. Extend the Witham Parish Boundary to include the new development site at Forest Road, Witham

I strongly object to this proposal because:-

  • Incorrect title: it should read ".... off Forest Road in Rivenhall". The official title is misleading and suggests that Rivenhall is already a part of Witham.
  • Braintree District Council has set such tight village envelopes for Rivenhall End and Rivenhall, that Rivenhall's community cannot expand sustainably: our children are forced to live outside the village due to no new homes being permitted within. The "Rivenhall Park" development should remain within the parish of Rivenhall so that residents can truly consider themselves part of our thriving, lively village community, not part of an increasingly sprawling urban conglomeration. This would give Rivenhall three village centres namely Rivenhall, Rivenhall Park and Rivenhall End.
  • If BDC is mindful to increase the Witham boundary at this site, it should only be expanded to enclose the Rivenhall Park development that has current planning permission. All land outside that with current planning permission must be retained as a green buffer between Rivenhall and Witham to safeguard the dramatically different characters of those two settlements.

2. Extend the Witham Parish Boundary to include the Eastways Industrial Estate.

I strongly object to this proposal because:-

  • Incorrect title: it should read ".... Waterside Business Park". It is only Waterside Business Park that currently (happily) lies within Rivenhall Parish. The published title is grossly misleading.
  • I am aware that BDC intends to extend the Waterside Business Park one field width northwards towards Rivenhall End. There is absolutely no need for any boundary extension to include Burghey Brook Farm itself. This is a further example of Witham Town Council seeking an unnecessary land-grab.
  • There is no tangible benefit in changing the parish within which an industrial area lies. If Waterside Business Park, Rivenhall must be extended then it should be permitted to expand within Rivenhall.
  • Following the Essex County Structure Planning Enquiry some year back in which a local landowner (still the local landowner) sought to develop the area between Witham and Rivenhall End, the Inspector threw out the proposed land-use change on a planning precedent - the clear wishes of the two communities involved (Witham and Rivenhall) demonstrated that both wished to remain independent and not be coalesced.

Clerk – Rivenhall Parish Council.

With regard to the above, and in reply to your previously received but undated letter, and following from a locally convened ‘Open Forum’ so that local residents could have an input, Rivenhall Parish Council respond as follows:

1.The Parish Council agree with the BDC decision regarding the established and proposed extension of Eastways Industrial Estate to be merged    and included within the Witham Parish boundary.

2. Although it is recognised that the new residents of the development north of Forest Road are more likely to look to Witham for goods and services, this is not in itself a sufficient reason why the Witham Parish boundary should be extended to include this development, therefore, the Parish Council recommend that this proposal should be withdrawn.

3.That BDC restrict any future discussion to the two sites contained in the consultation document.



Great Notley

Great Notley Parish Council

7 Mallard Close,
Great Notley

Great Notley Parish Council supports the proposal that the boundary of Great Notley Parish be extended to include the currently unparished area of Braintree to the west of the public footpath from a point where it crosses Queenborough Lane marked 'Area A' on the map. It should be noted that the map shows the boundary of the proposed extension to the Parish as being the A131 on one side and the slip road being the A1256 on the other, whereas the wording of the proposal states that the A120 is the boundary. The Parish Council is in agreement with the extended Parish boundary as shown on the map and being the A131 and A1256 as this makes sense from an administrative perspective. The Parish Council supports this proposal as the residents of 'area A' are to all intents and purposes part of the Parish and use Parish facilities and the proposal will more accurately reflect the Great Notley community.

Mr Patrick Wheeler

7 Jay Close
CM77 7GJ

I thoroughly endorse the revised proposals in which the 'Maylands' area south of Braintree is removed from the proposal to join the Great Notley parish. The area as designated on the map associated with the revised proposal is entirely sensible and reasonable given the split between the older established community and the newer building down Queenborough Lane. It is gratifying to feel that the representations made to the council have been carefully and thoughtfully considered.

Jonathan Barrow

3 Oaklands Close

I am writing to you to show my support for your proposal for the inclusion of the area west of the public footpath where it crosses Queenborough Lane through to the A120 - 'Area A'.

I am very pleased that, despite the considerable efforts of some closed minded individuals, the council has seen that this proposal makes sense.   In rounding off the parish boundary, the council makes fair the existing reliance on those services provided by the parish council for dwellers of 'Area A'.  Additionally with the A120 'split' already existing, the rounding off of the parish envelope geographically also makes sense. 

If there is anything i can do to assist with the successful conclusion of this proposal, I am at your disposal. 

Brett Oxford
38 Queenborough Lane

As a resident of Queenborough Lane/Maylands for nearly 15 years I do not see the need for Queenborough Lane/Maylands to be included as part of Great Notley Parish Council. It hasn't caused any problems not being part of it & I am personally happy with things the way they are.

D.V and S.M Robinson

1 Springmead
CM77 1PX

We note from the plan on the reverse of your communication dated December 2017 and following a visit to your Office to see more of the revised plan, we write to say that we are satisfied that ‘Springmead’ IS EXCLUDED from the proposal to extend the boundary of the Great Notley village and look forward to hearing of the settlement of this matter.

Gordon Compton

1 Oaklands Close
Cm77 7pz

I accept the changes as I get what I required, to belong to Braintree which I have for the last 43years and not part of Great Notley which will never be part of my life

Stephen Sadler

48 Chestnut Avenue
Great Notley
CM77 7YJ
I fully support the proposed changes. They appear to be rational and properly thought through. There is nothing in the proposal to which I would wish to object.

C. H. Ludar – Smith



I have already written to the council ( TWICE ) concerning the imposition of an un- w    anted and NOT needed  NOTLEY on my home at Springmead, Braintree

Tony Eve, John Pike & Sid Quattrucci

Greenway Gardens
The proposal made at the Community Governance Review Committee meeting on 29th November makes good sense in relation to the outcome of the surveys we undertook in 2012 and last September.
While the latest survey confirms the overwhelming resistance east of Washall Drive to being included in Great Notley, in 2012 we found that to the west there was a two thirds / one third majority in favour of being included in the parish. For that reason we did not repeat the survey in that area last September.
This proposal, therefore, comes close to being in line with the views of the residents of the two areas and we therefore support it.

Richard Smith

Greenway Gardens


As residents of Greenway Gardens we have always objected to any proposal to include this road and adjoining areas within the Great Notley parish boundary as we get the services we need direct from the district council, so support this revised proposal.

Christine & Michael Brine

Queenborough Lane

We are pleased to note the proposed amendment to the original proposal by Gt Notley Parish Council which would now seem to concur with the findings of a couple of surveys by local residents across the areas concerned.
We have never felt any affinity whatsoever with Gt Notley and have no interest in so doing. We have generally been well served by BDC since moving here in 1975 and, having considered Gt Notley’s case for ‘adopting’ us, can see no benefit from joining them.
I hope that this will see an end to the regular re-raising of this issue by Gt Notley PC which must have cost BDC appreciable and ill affordable time and cost over the years, particularly in this time of austerity.

G. Brine

Queenborough Lane
I am very pleased with the resultant decision and hope it is not raised again

Any other areas