Objecting to the 2023 Welbeck Outline Plan

Welbeck has now submitted their Outline Planning Application to Maldon District Council for 159 new houses on farmland to the north of West Street, Tollesbury.

Planning ref 23/01160/OUTM, Land to the North of West St Tollesbury

If you are also opposed to this, NOW is the time to formally object!

Maldon District Council have now checked the application; and it is registered; we can now lodge our objections.

ANYONE can object. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, so one household could submit four different objection letters. You don’t have to live in Tollesbury either, although your connection should be stated. You don’t have to be 18 to comment. Powerful objections can sometimes come from children!

We’ve prepared a one page sample letter containing several valid objection points for those living in Tollesbury. You can send this as it stands, or build on it by drawing from the valid objection points below. Simple volume of letters is vital, but raising lots of different issues is really important too. If you live in Tolleshunt D’Arcy there is a sample letter for you as well, also available in the Downloads & Links section below.

From all the advice we’ve received, we’re really very confident that if we all object, using the valid points provided here, “Team Tollesbury” can fight this off. Sending the highest possible volume of letters will show how strongly this unique village feels.

The points below are based on Maldon’s Local Development Plan (LDP) and the over-arching National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and related documents. That makes them strong, valid, and lawful.

We recommend using 4 or 5 of the suggested objections below – or more if you can!
Please do use some from the TOP VALUE list.
Then pick whichever are the most important to you from the FURTHER LIST.
Do stick to the points listed.

But if you think you’ve found a new angle please do let us know so we can add it here.

Don’t undermine your case by using other points: planners are NOT allowed to consider them.

eg Loss of private view (but general “outlook” is a valid point)

eg Loss of value to your property

eg Loss of private access rights

eg Land ownership issues

After each point that you use, you can say why you feel the proposal doesn’t comply with it, and why you think this point is important
Anyone can object, including children, so ONE HOUSEHOLD COULD SUBMIT SEVERAL LETTERS
If you’re not from Tollesbury we strongly recommend you state your connection. Eg “I sail from Tollesbury every week so I feel really strongly …”
If you get stuck please do phone for help! Or look visit us at one of our drop in sessions around the Tollesbury over the coming weeks
You needn’t sign your letter – see Public access statement

Public access statement extracted from Maldon District Council website: Maldon District Council is required by law to make all comments received available for inspection by any members of the public. If you do not wish to reveal personal information such as your written signature, personal telephone number or email address, these do not need to be provided. You must, however, state your name – this can be typewritten – and [postal] address. Confidential representations cannot be accepted.

If you have legal or other relevant qualifications, do include all the letters of your qualifications after your name.
Send your objection by one of the following:

Preferably via Maldon District Council’s online service at www.maldon.gov.uk/info/20046/development_management/8109/planning_applications. You will need to register first.
Do cc yourself as it would be useful if you can then forward it to Tollesbury.HART@btinternet.com and TollesburyPC@btinternet.com
Or by email to planning@maldon.gov.uk
It would be useful to copy Tollesbury.HART@btinternet.com and TollesburyPC@btinternet.com.

Or by post to Planning Services, Maldon District Council, Princes Road, Maldon CM9 5DL
It would be useful to copy HART and the Parish Council at:
Tollesbury.HART@btinternet.com or HART, c/o 98 Mell Road, Tollesbury, CM9 8SR
TollesburyPC@btinternet.com or Parish Clerk. Tollesbury Parish Council. PO Box 13205, Maldon, CM9 9FU

Top Value Objections

Further Objections

Sample Letter – long version

Downloads & Links

These are the points we believe will carry the most weight with planners. We recommend everyone uses some of these. We’ve 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

Maldon District has more than the required 5 year housing land supply.	Maldon District Council Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement, May’23
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 159 houses on one site.	Maldon District Local Development Plan – Policy S2, p16
Tollesbury’s “Housing, Employment and Business Needs Survey” (Apr’17) found that only 43 households wished to move within Tollesbury so 159 houses are unnecessary.	Tollesbury’s “Housing, Employment and Business Needs Survey” Apr’17 p54
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… appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes can be or have been taken up”.	NPPF 108, p32.
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 200 households; that we have a poor rural bus service, no railway station, and that we only have a few small shops. ie 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.
The Access and Movement Plan AMP01 RevA has no reference to to electric car charging point and contravenes the NPPF	NPPF 112e.
There is no acknowledgement that the proposed masterplan, massing or landscaping minimises energy consumption or carbon production. This contravenes NPPF.	NPPF 154-158
There is no secure covered cycle storage indicated on the Access and Movement Plan AMP01 RevA. Assuming residents will have curtilage cycle storage, there is still a defined lack of visitor and public cycle storage. This is contrary to the NPPF and The Essex Design Guide for Parking Design.	NPPF 106d

Natural Environment

NB When the Planning Application is registered, we expect Essex Wildlife Trust and other organisations will review it, 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, 170, p49.
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, 180, p52
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 “protect tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their amenity value for this reason”.	NPPF, 180, p52

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 127 p38
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. 13%.	NPPF 72a
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 159 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 West Street or North Road – 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 159 homes 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 94 p27.

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 discussion between applicants, the local planning authority and local community … is important for clarifying expectations and reconciling local and commercial interests”.	NPPF 128, p39
The results of Welbeck’s public engagement through their questionnaire clearly show that residents are against the development. The consultation leaflet to residents was poorly drafted and contained leading questions which are socially scientifically invalid.

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, 109, p30.

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 1.3 miles by foot from the proposed Mell Road access point to Tolleshunt D’Arcy school, of which 1.1 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 is 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 23/01160/OUTM, Land North of West St Tollesbury

I strongly object to this proposal for the following reasons:

Land Supply and Housing Need

I think this development is unnecessary and inappropriate because:

Maldon District Council’s “Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement” (May’23) shows there is more than the required 5 year housing land supply, there is currently 6.35;
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;
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.

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 159 houses without at least 159 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 159 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.”

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 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 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.

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 West Street houses and the footpath to the South of the site have an open outlook across this land to the river Blackwater. 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 159 all at once. A step-change increase of 13% 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 159 houses in a remote rural location where there are not 159 jobs, there is only a poor rural bus service, and there is no safe walking or cycling routes out of the village.

There are no constraints on building in Maldon District, as the council has allocated – and delivered more than the required 5-year housing land supply, none of which is in Tollesbury.

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

Education

The NPPF states that “it is important that a sufficient choice of school places is available”.

Another 159 homes will almost certainly cause some children to have to travel to Tolleshunt D’Arcy school, over 1.7 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.

Welbeck’s engagement

The NPPF states that “Early discussion between applicants, the local planning authority and local community … is important”, and that applicants “…should discuss what information is needed with the local planning authority … as early as possible”.

The results of Welbeck’s survey, both by post and via their website shows that Tollesbury residents were not for the development.

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.

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, 159 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
tollesburypc@btinternet.com

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 – MS WORD – PDF

Sample Four Page Letter – MS WORD

Sample One Page Letter for Tolleshunt D’Arcy Residents – MS Word – PDF

Tollesbury’s “Housing Needs Survey ” 2023

Tollesbury’s “Housing, Employment and Business Needs Survey” Apr’17

Policies Map for NE Maldon District