Objecting to the Gladman 2026 Outline Plan

These are the points we believe will carry the most weight with planners. We recommend everyone uses some of these. We will put them into our sample letter to get you started. You might not be able to add much to these points as they are simple statements of fact. Land supply and housing need

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states: “The planning system should be genuinely plan-led.” This development is not part of Maldon’s District Council current Growth Plan.	NPPF para 15
Maldon’s Local Development Plan (LDP), adopted by the Secretary of State, does not allocate any housing to Tollesbury.	Maldon District Local Development Plan LDP
Maldon’s LDP anticipates only 100 houses over 5 years across the whole District on “Windfall Sites” such as Woodrolfe Road and New Road (42 Dwellings): not 149 houses on one site.	Maldon District Local Development Plan –  Policy S2, p16
Tollesbury’s “Housing, Employment and Business Needs Survey” (Oct’23) found that only 51 households wished to move within Tollesbury so 149 houses are unnecessary.	Tollesbury’s “Housing, Employment and Business Needs Survey” Oct’23
The LDP states that “outside of defined settlement boundaries, planning permission will only be granted where the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside is not adversely impacted“. This site is outside Tollesbury’s “settlement boundary” (Policies Map for NE Maldon District) so the proposal does not comply.	Policies Map for NE Maldon District and Maldon District Local Development Plan –   Policy S8, 2.101, p44

• We recommend everyone also includes some of these
• We’ve put the headings in our sample letter so you don’t have to – but you don’t have to use all of them! Just delete any you don’t want to use. Reword them if you prefer
• The text in italics should not be altered as it is quoting from policy
• You can add your own words to say why you think the proposal doesn’t comply with it, and why you think this point is important
• Remember this might be read by a PLANNING INSPECTOR IN BRISTOL WHO HAS NEVER SEEN TOLLESBURY .

If this goes to appeal then our objections will go to the Government’s Planning Inspectorate, which is in Bristol.

They won’t know Tollesbury: so sell it to them! Tell them about the beauty, the remoteness, the sense of open space. Let them know about the character and historical side of Tollesbury: “The Village of the Plough and the Sail”, which surely shouldn’t be giving up its ploughs for bricks.

Sustainability

The LDP requires that developments “seek to reduce the need to travel, particularly by private vehicle”.	LDP Policy D2, p51
The LDP states that the Council’s strategic approach to improve accessibility is to “reduce the District’s over dependence on the car, reduce carbon emissions, and benefit the health and wellbeing of residents”.	LDP Policy T2, 7.12, p110.
The NPPF states that “…it should be ensured that… sustainable transport modes are prioritised taking account of the vision for the site, the type of development and its location”.	NPPF 115, p33.
The Environmental Sustainability Appraisal objectives in the LDP are “to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and to maintain and enhance the quality of the countryside … and local landscape character.”	LDP Appendix 3, p140.
If you use the points above, you’ll probably want to say that Tollesbury doesn’t have jobs for 149 households; that we have a poor rural bus service, no railway station, and that we only have a few small shops. i.e. People are extremely likely to drive to work and for shopping.	LDP Policy T2, 7.11, p110.
The LDP states that “the Council will seek to ensure all new developments are well connected to existing public transport routes” and that “all development will … have regard to … proximity of local transport”.	LDP Policy H4, p88.
There is no acknowledgement that the proposed masterplan, massing or landscaping minimises energy consumption or carbon production. This contravenes NPPF.	NPPF 166 p49

Natural Environment

NB We still expect Essex Wildlife Trust and other organisations will the application, and we hope to be able to share more information here then. Don’t hold back your objection letter for it though: you can write again with more information later.

The NPPF states “Planning… decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes…; recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside” and that “development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions”.	NPPF, 187, p54.
The LDP states that “the Council’s priority is to protect the countryside for its intrinsic value”, and that “development will be largely restricted in the countryside to protect its character and attractiveness”.	LDP Policy S8 2.103 p46
The NPPF states that authorities should “limit the impact of light pollution on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation”.	LDP Policy D2, 3.10, p51 NPPF, 198, p57
If you use this point you will probably want to refer to Tollesbury Wick, a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and a Special Protection Area (SPA).
The NPPF states that authorities should “identify and protect tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason” and “limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation”.	NPPF, 198, p57

Character, history, distinctiveness, amenity

The LDP states that the District “will retain the identity of our villages“.	LDP 2.4 p12
You may want to mention that Tollesbury is known as “The Village of the Plough and the Sail”.
The NPPF states that developments should “add to the overall quality of the area” and “[be] sympathetic to local character and history, including the… landscape setting…”.	NPPF 135 p39
This is a good place to write all about the character or Tollesbury – remember the Bristol Planning Inspectorate people don’t know what it’s like here!
The LDP states that all development will have regard to “the impacts upon the amenities of neighbouring properties”.	LDP Policy H4, p88.
Here’s a good place to talk about how good it is to enjoy the beauty and open space of a rural agricultural field as you walk along the footpath beside it.
The LDP states “It is important that any growth would [reflect] the size and function of the settlement.”	LDP 2.29, p20.
You’ll want to know that Tollesbury has 1250 properties so this would increase the size by approx. 12%.	NPPF 70 p18
The LDP states that “growth will be concentrated in the most sustainable, accessible and appropriate locations, taking into account constraints and the need to protect valued local countryside.”	LDP 2.4, p12
It is 9 miles to Maldon and 12 to Colchester – the nearest towns. There is no railway station and only a poor rural bus service. There are not jobs here for 149 households so people would drive to work. There are few shops here so people would drive to shop. The proposal is to build on rural agricultural land – which is “valued local countryside”
The LDP states that “All development must … protect the amenity of surrounding areas taking into account… outlook… [and] visual impact”.	LDP Policy D1, page 48
Another good point to use when describing the enjoy the beauty and open space of this rural agricultural field from the footpath beside it. And if you live in Mell Road or The Mount – write about the visual impact on the outlook of building here (just don’t talk about “the view”).

Education

The NPPF states that “it is important that a sufficient choice of school places is available”.  Another 14 9homes will almost certainly cause some children to have to travel to D’Arcy school. This is a CofE school, so not an option for some families. The development would therefore reduce choice.	NPPF 100 p29
If you use this point you may want to be aware that: –    D’Arcy is a CofE school –    Its admissions policy prioritises worshipping families and those from non-Tollesbury villages

Engagement

The NPPF states that “Early engagement has significant potential to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the planning application system for all parties”.	NPPF 40, p13
The results of Gladman public engagement back in 2019 and 2025 through their questionnaire clearly show that residents are against the development. Before it was refused the 2019 application had over 1500 objections. Gladman sent a letter to the Member of Parliament for Maldon rather than our MP. This shows yet another lack of attention to detail.

Infrastructure

The LDP states that all development will have regard to “the capacity of local infrastructure”.	LDP Policy H4, p88.
If you use this point you may want to be aware that: –    Sewage already overflows regularly into the creek –    The sewerage provider has already warned the Parish Council that more houses will cause issues	Date –  Incident No 16 Aug 2018 – 5532966 28 Aug 2018 – 55390895 1 Sep 2018 – 55375336 23 Sep 2018 – 55444091 11 Mar 2019 – 55966779 25 Jun 2019 – 56418797

Road safety

The NPPF allows Development to be refused “if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety”.

NPPF, 116, p33.

If you use this point please be aware that traffic jams and poorly parked cars are NOT valid planning points:  only road SAFETY can be considered. You may also like to know that: –    It is approx 2 miles by foot from the proposed Mell Rd access point to Tolleshunt D’Arcy school, of which 1.2 miles has no pavement –    A child over 8 who has to travel to D’Arcy must usually go at the parents’ expense, so s/he might walk.

A downloadable template will be available in the ‘Downloads’ tab.

Your address
Your address
Tollesbury
MALDON
Essex
POSTCODE

Date

Planning Services
Maldon District Council
Princes Road
MALDON   CM9 5DL

Dear Sir / Madam

Re: Planning ref 26/00066/OUTM, Land Rear Of 6 To 108 Mell Road Tollesbury Essex

I strongly object to this proposal for the following reasons:

1. Land Supply and Housing Need

I think this development is unnecessary and inappropriate because:

• The LDP does not allocate any housing to Tollesbury;
• The LDP anticipates only 100 houses over 5 years across the whole District on “Windfall Sites”, Tollesbury already has 2 sites with planning granted for 42 dwellings;
• Tollesbury’s “Housing, Employment and Business Needs Survey” (Apr’17) found that only 43 households wished to move within Tollesbury;
• Tollesbury’s “Housing Needs Survey” (Oct’23) found that the village needs only 51 residences across the spectrum; there is already 42 with planning granted and other vacant properties;
• The LDP states: “outside of defined settlement boundaries, planning permission will only be granted where the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside is not adversely impacted“, and the Policies Map for NE Maldon District shows that the site is outside Tollesbury’s “settlement boundary”, and this will impact on the character of the countryside.

2. Sustainability

• The LDP requires that developments “seek to reduce the need to travel, particularly by private vehicle”; that the Council will “reduce the District’s over dependence on the car, reduce carbon emissions, and benefit the health and wellbeing of residents”; and it includes objectives “to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases…” Also the NPPF states that “… appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes” should be ensured.

Another 149 houses without at least 149 local jobs will increase the need to travel – and with a poor rural bus service that will be mostly by private vehicle.

• The nearest railway station is 9 miles away, so 149 new houses will not fulfil the LDP statement: “The council will seek to ensure all new developments are well connected to local public transport routes.”

3. Natural Environment

• The NPPF states that “development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions”.

Building here will not improve the environment for these species. There are birds in red conservation status here as well as badgers.

The disturbance to wildlife during the build phase and the early years of the estate could lead to permanent losses and Welbeck have provided no evidence that it would not do so.

• The NPPF refers to protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, “recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside”, and the LDP states that “the Council’s priority is to protect the countryside for its intrinsic value”, and that “development will be largely restricted in the countryside to protect its character and attractiveness”.

A housing estate will damage the landscape and beauty of the countryside, not protect or enhance it.

• The NPPF states that authorities should “limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation”.

The builder may install low-pollution street lighting but residents will undoubtedly install garden and security flood-lighting which will not limit light pollution at all on this naturally dark landscape, which has always been so.

• The NPPF states that authorities should “protect tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason”.

This is a tranquil area where people walk to relax. A housing estate simply cannot be as quiet as a field.

4. Character, history, distinctiveness, amenity

• The LDP states that the District “will retain the identity of our villages” and the NPPF states that developments should “add to the overall quality of the area” and “[be] sympathetic to local character and history, including the… landscape setting…”

Tollesbury’s identity is “The village of the Plough and the Sail”. This field has been ploughed for centuries and replacing it with housing and dog walks is not retaining its identity.

• The LDP states that all development will have regard to “the impacts upon the amenities of neighbouring properties” and that “All development must … protect the amenity of surrounding areas taking into account… outlook… [and] visual impact”.

The Mell Road houses and the footpath to the South of the site have an open outlook across this land.  Building houses here will remove the amenity.

• The LDP states “It is important that any growth would [reflect] the size … of the settlement.”

Tollesbury has nearly 1200 houses and the proposal is to build another 149 all at once. A step-change increase of 12% is certainly not reflecting the size of the settlement.

• The LDP states that “growth will be concentrated in the most sustainable, accessible and appropriate locations, taking into account constraints and the need to protect valued local countryside.”

It is clearly not sustainable to build 149 houses in a remote rural location where there are not 149 jobs, there is only a poor rural bus service, and there is no safe walking or cycling routes out of the village. The village has already lost the bakery and the book shop in recent months.

Building on an agricultural field does not protect valued local countryside.

5. Education

• The NPPF states that “it is important that a sufficient choice of early years, school and post-16 places are available to meet the needs of existing and new communities”.

Another 149 homes will almost certainly cause some children to have to travel to Tolleshunt D’Arcy school, over 2 miles away. It is a CofE school, so not an option for some families. The development would therefore reduce parental choice.

D’Arcy school’s admissions policy prioritises children from various villages, but the list excludes Tollesbury. Children are therefore likely to need to go to Tiptree, over 5 miles away.

There is no safe walking or cycling route to anywhere outside Tollesbury, so sending children to these other village schools will cause increased costs to Essex County Council school transport.

6. Gladman’s engagement

• The NPPF states that “Early engagement has significant potential to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the planning application system for all parties”, and that “Early discussion between applicants, the local planning authority and local community about the design and style of emerging schemes is important for clarifying expectations and reconciling local and commercial interests”.

The results of Gladman’s survey from December 2025, both by post and via their website shows that Tollesbury residents were not for the development. Engagement with residents for this application left little time for reply before the application was lodged. Not all households in the village were sent a letter, however a development of this size affects the whole population. Gladman did not meet with residents, but it did send a letter to the MP of Maldon, which does not represent us. We are in the Witham constituency.

7. Infrastructure

• The LDP states that all development will have regard to “the capacity of local infrastructure”.

The local electricity supply already suffers regular outages, and sewage already overflows after heavy rain.

8. Road safety

• The NPPF allows Development to be refused “if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety”.

With only a handful of small shops, 149 more houses will rely heavily on home deliveries, increasing incoming traffic along the Tollesbury Road from Tolleshunt D’arcy and increasing the risks for pedestrians in Tollesbury.

Yours faithfully

Name (print):

cc
Parish Clerk. Tollesbury Parish Council. PO Box 13205, Maldon, CM9 9FU
clerk@tollesburyparishcouncil.gov.uk

HART, c/o 98 Mell Road, Tollesbury CM9 8SR
Tollesbury.HART@btinternet.com

National Planning Policy Framework NPFF – PDF Maldon Local Development Plan – PDF Sample One Page Letter for Tollesbury Residents – PDF MSWORD Sample Four Page Letter – MSWORD Sample One Page Letter for Tolleshunt D’Arcy Residents – PDF MSWORD Sample One Page Letter for Salcott Residents – PDF MSWORD Tollesbury’s “Housing Needs Survey ” 2023 Tollesbury’s “Housing, Employment and Business Needs Survey” Apr’17 Policies Map for NE Maldon District Tollesbury Wick (well not strictly a download, but a useful link anyway) Tollesbury School Admissions Policy Tolleshunt D’Arcy St. Nicholas C of E (VA) Primary School Admissions Policy Essex County Council Home to School Transport Policy – Overview Tollesbury Parish Council  Notes of Gladman meeting with Tollesbury Parish Council Tree Preservation Orders and trees in conservation areas Countryside hedgerows: protection and management RSPB Protecting hedgerows, trees and woodlands – PDF The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is the primary legislation which protects animals, plants and habitats in the UK. RSPB – Local Planning Pack England RSPB – Saving Special Places

• We recommend everyone also includes some of these
• We’ve put the headings in our sample letter so you don’t have to – but you don’t have to use all of them! Just delete any you don’t want to use. Reword them if you prefer
• The text in italics should not be altered as it is quoting from policy
• You can add your own words to say why you think the proposal doesn’t comply with it, and why you think this point is important
• Remember this might be read by a PLANNING INSPECTOR IN BRISTOL WHO HAS NEVER SEEN TOLLESBURY .

If this goes to appeal then our objections will go to the Government’s Planning Inspectorate, which is in Bristol.

They won’t know Tollesbury: so sell it to them! Tell them about the beauty, the remoteness, the sense of open space. Let them know about the character and historical side of Tollesbury: “The Village of the Plough and the Sail”, which surely shouldn’t be giving up its ploughs for bricks.

Sustainability

The LDP requires that developments “seek to reduce the need to travel, particularly by private vehicle”.	LDP Policy D2, p51
The LDP states that the Council’s strategic approach to improve accessibility is to “reduce the District’s over dependence on the car, reduce carbon emissions, and benefit the health and wellbeing of residents”.	LDP Policy T2, 7.12, p110.
The NPPF states that “…it should be ensured that… sustainable transport modes are prioritised taking account of the vision for the site, the type of development and its location”.	NPPF 115, p33.
The Environmental Sustainability Appraisal objectives in the LDP are “to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and to maintain and enhance the quality of the countryside … and local landscape character.”	LDP Appendix 3, p140.
If you use the points above, you’ll probably want to say that Tollesbury doesn’t have jobs for 149 households; that we have a poor rural bus service, no railway station, and that we only have a few small shops. i.e. People are extremely likely to drive to work and for shopping.	LDP Policy T2, 7.11, p110.
The LDP states that “the Council will seek to ensure all new developments are well connected to existing public transport routes” and that “all development will … have regard to … proximity of local transport”.	LDP Policy H4, p88.
There is no acknowledgement that the proposed masterplan, massing or landscaping minimises energy consumption or carbon production. This contravenes NPPF.	NPPF 166 p49

Natural Environment

NB We still expect Essex Wildlife Trust and other organisations will the application, and we hope to be able to share more information here then. Don’t hold back your objection letter for it though: you can write again with more information later.

The NPPF states “Planning… decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes…; recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside” and that “development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions”.	NPPF, 187, p54.
The LDP states that “the Council’s priority is to protect the countryside for its intrinsic value”, and that “development will be largely restricted in the countryside to protect its character and attractiveness”.	LDP Policy S8 2.103 p46
The NPPF states that authorities should “limit the impact of light pollution on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation”.	LDP Policy D2, 3.10, p51 NPPF, 198, p57
If you use this point you will probably want to refer to Tollesbury Wick, a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and a Special Protection Area (SPA).
The NPPF states that authorities should “identify and protect tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason” and “limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation”.	NPPF, 198, p57

Character, history, distinctiveness, amenity

The LDP states that the District “will retain the identity of our villages“.	LDP 2.4 p12
You may want to mention that Tollesbury is known as “The Village of the Plough and the Sail”.
The NPPF states that developments should “add to the overall quality of the area” and “[be] sympathetic to local character and history, including the… landscape setting…”.	NPPF 135 p39
This is a good place to write all about the character or Tollesbury – remember the Bristol Planning Inspectorate people don’t know what it’s like here!
The LDP states that all development will have regard to “the impacts upon the amenities of neighbouring properties”.	LDP Policy H4, p88.
Here’s a good place to talk about how good it is to enjoy the beauty and open space of a rural agricultural field as you walk along the footpath beside it.
The LDP states “It is important that any growth would [reflect] the size and function of the settlement.”	LDP 2.29, p20.
You’ll want to know that Tollesbury has 1250 properties so this would increase the size by approx. 12%.	NPPF 70 p18
The LDP states that “growth will be concentrated in the most sustainable, accessible and appropriate locations, taking into account constraints and the need to protect valued local countryside.”	LDP 2.4, p12
It is 9 miles to Maldon and 12 to Colchester – the nearest towns. There is no railway station and only a poor rural bus service. There are not jobs here for 149 households so people would drive to work. There are few shops here so people would drive to shop. The proposal is to build on rural agricultural land – which is “valued local countryside”
The LDP states that “All development must … protect the amenity of surrounding areas taking into account… outlook… [and] visual impact”.	LDP Policy D1, page 48
Another good point to use when describing the enjoy the beauty and open space of this rural agricultural field from the footpath beside it. And if you live in Mell Road or The Mount – write about the visual impact on the outlook of building here (just don’t talk about “the view”).

Education

The NPPF states that “it is important that a sufficient choice of school places is available”.  Another 14 9homes will almost certainly cause some children to have to travel to D’Arcy school. This is a CofE school, so not an option for some families. The development would therefore reduce choice.	NPPF 100 p29
If you use this point you may want to be aware that: –    D’Arcy is a CofE school –    Its admissions policy prioritises worshipping families and those from non-Tollesbury villages

Engagement

The NPPF states that “Early engagement has significant potential to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the planning application system for all parties”.	NPPF 40, p13
The results of Gladman public engagement back in 2019 and 2025 through their questionnaire clearly show that residents are against the development. Before it was refused the 2019 application had over 1500 objections. Gladman sent a letter to the Member of Parliament for Maldon rather than our MP. This shows yet another lack of attention to detail.

Infrastructure

The LDP states that all development will have regard to “the capacity of local infrastructure”.	LDP Policy H4, p88.
If you use this point you may want to be aware that: –    Sewage already overflows regularly into the creek –    The sewerage provider has already warned the Parish Council that more houses will cause issues	Date –  Incident No 16 Aug 2018 – 5532966 28 Aug 2018 – 55390895 1 Sep 2018 – 55375336 23 Sep 2018 – 55444091 11 Mar 2019 – 55966779 25 Jun 2019 – 56418797

Road safety

The NPPF allows Development to be refused “if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety”.

NPPF, 116, p33.

If you use this point please be aware that traffic jams and poorly parked cars are NOT valid planning points:  only road SAFETY can be considered. You may also like to know that: –    It is approx 2 miles by foot from the proposed Mell Rd access point to Tolleshunt D’Arcy school, of which 1.2 miles has no pavement –    A child over 8 who has to travel to D’Arcy must usually go at the parents’ expense, so s/he might walk.