Mill Cottage, The Street, Salcott Maldon CM9 8HJ

1. 1.The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) (2024) and the Planning Practice Guidance recognise the importance of good design, with specifically paragraph 135 of the NPPF requiring planning decisions to ensure development is sympathetic to local character. Paragraph 131 states that the creation of high quality and beautiful buildings and places are both fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Colchester Borough Local Plan 2013-2033 Section 1 Policy SP 7 requires all development to meet high standards of urban and architectural design, respond positively to local character and enhance the quality of existing places. Colchester Borough Local Plan Section 2 Policies DM13 and DM15 echoes these sentiments, requiring all development must be designed to a high standard and positively respond to its context, specifying that wherever possible development should enhance the character of the site, its context and surroundings in terms of its layout, architectural approach, height, scale, form, massing, density, proportions, materials, townscape and/or landscape qualities, and detailed design features. Local Plan Section 2 Policy DM13 states that: Residential annexes will be supported where the need for additional space cannot be met within an existing dwelling or buildings suitable for conversion on the site in the first instance, provided the proposal meets the following criteria: (i) The proposal is physically attached or closely related to the main IMPORTANT – ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE NOTES ATTACHED DC1001MWD dwelling so that it cannot be subdivided from the main dwelling; (ii) The proposal retains some form of demonstrable dependence on the main dwelling, such as shared access (including both vehicular access and doorways) and communal amenity spaces (the use of annexes as a separate dwelling will not be permitted and the desire for annexed occupants to be independent from existing residents will not be considered as adequate justification to allow self-contained dwellings in annexes); (iii) The proposal respects and enhances both the character of the original dwelling and the context of the surrounding area through high quality design; and (iv) The proposal does not result in the loss of amenity to neighbouring Properties. The proposed annexe is not closely related to the host dwelling, with a separate access and parking area, and the building would have all services and space required for independent living, with no reliance on the host dwelling. By virtue of these characteristics and the design issues outlined further detailed bellow, the proposal fails to accord with Policy DM13 and it is considered the proposal would be tantamount to a new dwelling. Notwithstanding the above, as a result of the proposed building’s scale, massing, layout, general form and detailed design the proposal would be a dominant and jarring addition to the curtilage of the listed building which will lead to harm to the character and appearance of the listed building and its setting. The building would also read as sizeable detached two- storey dwelling which fails to relate or respond to the existing patterns of developments and would read as a cramped, contrived and incongruous form of backland development. For these reasons the proposal would fail to respond or respect existing patterns of development, or otherwise achieve a high quality of design, subsequently resulting in harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider area. When taken as a whole, the proposal fails to demonstrate any demonstrable dependence on the host dwelling and fails to respond satisfactorily to the character and appearance of the area as a result of its scale, massing and architectural approach adopted. For these reasons the proposal fails to represent a high quality of design, will be to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area and is held that the proposed is contrary to the aforementioned na
2. 2.Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act (1990), planning decisions shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings and their setting . At the same time, NPPF’s Section 16, Par.213 determines that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification, while Par. 215 clarifies that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the asset’s significance, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use. The above legislation and national policies for the protection of designated heritage assets are reflected in Colchester Local Plan 2017-2033-Section 2 Policies ENV1-Environment, DM16- Historic Environment which seek to protect Colchester’s historic environment. It is considered that the proposed annexe by virtue of its size, massing and detailed design would be a dominant and jarring addition within the curtilage of the listed building. This will lead to harm to the the listed host dwelling, through an erosion of the character and apperance of its setting. This harm would be defined as less than substantial, as per the NPPF, there would be no public benefits provided by the scheme which would outweigh this harm. For the above reasons, the development would result in unjustified harm to the setting of the Grade II listed building. Therefore, the application fails to comply with Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. It is also contrary to Par. 213 and 215 of the NPPF which require robust justification for any identified harm to designated heritage assets and public benefits that can outweigh this harm, when classified in the spectrum of less than substantial. Finally, the proposal is contrary to Local Plan Policies ENV1, DM16, failing to protect and enhance the character of the listed building and it wider setting.
3. 3.Local Plan Section 2 Policy DM23 will seek to direct development away from land at risk of flooding in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance and development will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that the proposal meets flood management requirements in the NPPF, PPG and policy DM23. Paragraph 170 of the NPPF states inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk (whether existing or future). Where development is necessary in such areas, the development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere. The proposal site is located within the NPPF defined Flood Zone 3 a high probability area for river flooding. The proposed development is classified as more vulnerable by the PPG and that this type of development can only be permitted within Flood Zone 3 through the use of a Specific Flood Risk Assessment to show that the proposal passes both exemption test elements as set out in Paragraph 178 of the NPPF. Without a specific FRA the proposal cannot be assessed against the conditions laid out in the exemption test and therefore, the proposed development in flood zone 3 cannot be permitted as it has not been demonstrated that the development will be safe for future users for its lifetime. The proposal is therefore contrary to both National and Local policies.
4. 4.Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) is a legal requirement, and the provisions of this statutory condition are reflected and reinforced by Policy ENV1 of the adopted Section 2 Local Plan. The application form claims that the Biodiversity Gain Condition (as set out in Paragraph 13 of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) would not apply, as the development is subject to the de minimis exemption. However, based on the information submitted, it is considered that the development would impact over 25 square metres of habitat and, as such, would not qualify for the de minimis exemption. It has not, therefore, been demonstrated that the proposal would be exempt, and the application does not satisfy the minimum information requirements of the statutory BNG condition. The proposal fails to demonstrate that it would achieve at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value relative to the pre-development biodiversity value of the on-site habitat. Taken as a whole, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal will, or is capable of being, compliant with the statutory Biodiversity Net Gain condition under Paragraph 13 of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The proposal would also be contrary to Policy ENV1 of the adopted Local Plan, as it fails to demonstratemeasurable Biodiversity Net Gain. PLEASE NOTE: a site notice was erected in a publicly visible location at the site. Colchester Borough Council would appreciate your co-operation in taking the site notice down and disposing of it.

From the council's decision notice.

Postcode

CM9 8HJ

Application type

Full (8 Week Determination)

Scale / size

Small

Parish

Winstred Hundred

Date validated

6 November 2025

Consultation expiry

4 December 2025

Consultation end

4 December 2025

Target decision date

1 January 2026

Statutory period

56 days

Appeal result

l

UPRN

10004958208