Over the bank holiday weekend all Tollesbury residents should receive HART Newsletter No 10 through their letterbox. It’s an update to the 3 major applications that directly affect Tollesbury and the surrounding villages. 

Next Wednesday, 2nd September, Maldon District Council are scheduled to determine The Gladman planning application for 149 houses off of Mell Road, Tollesbury. You can view the proceedings on the MDC YouTube channel or you can attend in person. Space is limited in the council chamber, however there is a viewing area in the council offices reception.

All our newsletters can be found on our Newsletter page

After the last determination meeting for the Welbeck application one resident told me that he’d watched the whole thing live on YouTube and that it was “better than all that usually rubbish on the telly.” I can’t guarantee excitement, intrigue or a captivating cast of characters, but this is the future of our village, please watch.

On Thursday the HART chair wrote to all Maldon District Councillors with the following:

Dear Councillors,

This letter is a collective representation from Tollesbury residents to Maldon District Council’s Planning Committee, raising concerns about the way the planning applications from Obsidian, Welbeck and Gladman are being assessed.

The central argument is that, while each application must technically be considered separately, the combined impact of all three developments—508 new homes—cannot be properly understood by looking at each application in isolation. The residents question whether Planning Officers and Members are relying too heavily on inconsistent or incomplete consultee information.

The main points are:

  • Education:
    The consultee figures appear inconsistent. For example, 149 homes are said to generate a need for 17.8 school places, while 159 homes generate only 14.3. Welbeck apparently requires no contribution towards primary places, whereas Obsidian and Gladman together identify a need a contribution to more than 104 additional places. The village’s schools are already close to capacity and question how children requiring places outside Tollesbury would affect travel, sustainability and community cohesion and integration.
  • NHS/GP capacity:
    The three developments would increase the population by around 1,190 people. The existing GP practice is already described as oversubscribed. The residents calculate that approximately 236 square metres of additional space is likely to be required, representing a potential 132% increase in the physical size of the GP facility. They ask the Council how this could realistically be achieved, regardless of any financial S106 contributions. The surgery is within the conservation area and would require car parking space to be removed to accommodate any further expansion.
  • Water and sewage:
    Two of the three Anglian Water responses reportedly raise objections or concerns about capacity. The residents question how planning permission can be granted without knowing whether the additional waste and sewage can actually be accommodated, particularly given that the Obsidian application was approved despite a specific objection concerning waste removal.
  • Ecology and archaeology:
    In all three applications, consultees apparently stated that insufficient information was available to make a determination. The residents question why decisions can nevertheless be made when the relevant experts cannot properly assess the impact.
  • Highways, traffic and transport:
    The residents highlight concerns raised by the Conservation Officer about additional traffic on North Road, Back Road and Colchester Road, including the protected lane. They argue that the Welbeck access road is likely to direct traffic from both the 159 Welbeck homes and the 200 Obsidian homes towards Colchester Road, while Gladman’s 149 homes would add further traffic, all of which would have to go through the conservation area and narrow roads to exit the village. They therefore question the conclusion that Welbeck would have no additional highway impact compared with the Obsidian development alone. Tollesbury is not only the furthest settlement in Maldon district from a railway station it is also the 4th furthest in Essex. Why does the officer in his report on Gladman (5.2.21) state “the site would be in a sustainable location”, when it encourages private car trips not reduce them?  
  • Landscape and public amenity:
    The combined developments would significantly reduce the open countryside and rural views currently enjoyed from public rights of way around Tollesbury. The residents argue that approximately half of the village’s circumference is likely to effectively lose its existing rural amenity. Because Tollesbury is on a peninsula, they say there are very limited opportunities to replace these walks with equivalent countryside views.
  • Sustainability:
    The officers report for Gladman (5.2.29) shows that the MDC call to sites identified the TOL5 as being sustainable for up to 120 dwellings. So how can 149 be sustainable?

 Overall message

The letter asks councillors to look beyond the individual planning applications and consider their cumulative impact on Tollesbury’s infrastructure, environment, roads, services and rural character.

It also challenges the Planning Officer to scrutinise inconsistent, incomplete or apparently contradictory consultee information, rather than simply relying upon it when recommending approval.

The underlying question is essentially:

If 508 additional homes are considered acceptable, how can Maldon District Council demonstrate that Tollesbury has the schools, GP facilities, sewage capacity, roads, environmental capacity and public amenity needed to support them?

The letter is therefore less an objection to one particular application and more a challenge to the adequacy and consistency of the evidence being used to justify the cumulative development of Tollesbury.

Let’s hope they all read it, and take notice of how residents feel, not only in Tollesbury, but across the Maldon District.