Case Reference: 3354391

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 1 April 2025
by Zoe Raygen DipURP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 10th April 2025
Appeal Ref: APP/A1530/W/24/3354391
The Maypole Messing Road, Tiptree, Essex CO5 0ES
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Colchester City Council.
• The application Ref is 241462.
• The development proposed is demolition of existing outbuildings, two of which are residentially
incidental to the restaurant pursuant to ldc 232838 as approved on 12th June 2024 together with a
storage container serving the restaurant, and the subsequent erection of 1x three-bedroom house
ancillary to the maypole together with amenity space and car parking: application submitted on a
self-build basis.
• .
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Main Issues
2. The main issues are:
• The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area;
• The effect of the proposal on the setting of The Maypole a grade II listed
building;
• Whether the proposal is in an accessible location;
• The effect of the development on the Essex Coast RAMS; and
• Whether the proposal makes acceptable provision for community facilities and
sport and recreation.
Reasons
Character and appearance and setting of listed building
3. The settlement boundary of Tiptree, a large village, bisects the appeal site. The
appeal property is located on a crossroads and is set back from the road behind a
large car park. It presents an end gable to New Road to the east which is relatively
narrow and characterised by hedgerows and trees creating a rural approach to the
building and the village. To the south and west is the built up area of Tiptree. The
property has a rear long rear garden which is mainly laid to grass and bound by a
timber boarded fence and hedging towards New Road. To the north is open
countryside.
4. The building is a Grade II listed building constructed in the late seventeenth
century, and altered in the nineteenth century, from brick and timber framing which
is plastered. It is two storey with a grey slate hipped roof. Its significance, for the
purposes of this appeal, relates primarily to the remaining historic and architectural
structure together with its use as a public house demonstrating the social history of
the village. The appellant submits a copy of the 1885-1900 which shows very little
development around the building, and certainly to the rear, with the garden land
associated with the listed building. While there has been more development to the
south , it is still within an open setting with the closest building being single storey
only, thereby contributing to its significance by allowing a good appreciation of the
listed building as originally experienced in the landscape especially to the rear.
5. Consequently, the building contributes positively to the transition zone between the
built up area of Tiptree and the open countryside. It provides interest to the built
form and the lengthy garden provides a relatively open and well treed space which
integrates into the open countryside beyond. There are two portable buildings
used for ancillary residential purposes in association with the public house and a
storage container all confirmed by a Lawful Development Certificate1 sited in the
garden. However, these are single storey and are hardly seen over the boundary
fence and vegetation. They do not therefore significantly harm the character and
appearance of the area.
6. The proposal is for the removal of the container and portable buildings and their
replacement with a large chalet bungalow. The building would be significantly
higher and bulkier than the existing structures on site and consequently would be
visible within the garden of the appeal site from New Road. This would harmfully
erode the rural character and appearance of the approach into Tiptree, particularly
given the proximity of the house to the road, the removal of hedgerow and the
surfacing of an access and parking space at the far northern edge of the appeal
site creating a contrived and cramped form of development at odds with the
settlement pattern of large plots. I appreciate that the parking area is already in
use and landscaping could be introduced. However, it is the effect of the proposals
as a whole, which irrespective of the design of the house, would be overly
obtrusive within the rural approach to Tiptree. Furthermore, the proposed house,
given its size and massing would harmfully compete with the listed building
reducing the ability to appreciate it and its legibility in its current open and spacious
setting to the detriment of its significance.
7. I appreciate that land associated with Elms Farm to the north is allocated for
development within the Tiptree Neighbourhood Plan 2023 (the Neighbourhood
Plan) and there is also an outline proposal for development at this site. However,
the Council confirms that the associated masterplan shows a green buffer to the
southern boundary near to the appeal site recognising the importance of
preserving the existing open and rural character of the area as well as the historic
setting of the listed building. In addition, there is no certainty that the housing will
come forward at this point and I must assess the proposal based on the existing
circumstances. I can give this matter only minor weight.
8. I accept that the existing structures on the appeal site as well as the existing rear
extension to the listed building, all detract from the significance of the building as
well as the character and appearance of the area. However, notwithstanding how
1 232838
long the structures have already been onsite, they are of a temporary form and
nature. As well as being single storey and low massing. The proposal would be a
permanent structure which would be significantly taller and have a much larger
massing which I have found would be harmful. Furthermore, while the proposed
house would be constructed in the locality of the existing structures, due to their
temporary nature there would be nothing to stop the appellant moving them
elsewhere on the site. There would need to be some form of legal obligation which
ensures that they are removed entirely from the site and there is none before me.
9. For the reasons above, the proposal would be harmful to the character and
appearance of the area and to the significance of the listed building contrary to
policies SP7, DM15 and DM16 of the of the Colchester Borough Local Plan 2017-
2033 adopted 2022 (the Local Plan), Policy TIP02 of the Neighbourhood Plan and
the Backland and Infill Development Supplementary Planning Document 2009.
Together, these require that development protects, conserves or enhances
townscape, and the significance of heritage assets as well as all development
responding positively to local character and context.
Accessibility
10. The access for the proposed house is shown on the submitted plans from New
Road. This is a narrow road with no footway or lighting. While there is no dispute
that Tiptree can accommodate growth due to the ample services and facilities in
the village, the garden is outside of the settlement boundary and prospective
residents would need to walk along New Road to access the village centre.
11. The appellant has stated that as the dwelling would be ancillary to the public
house and occupied by family of the owner, then residents would be able to take
access through the building. Even if I were to consider this as ancillary
accommodation it would need to meet the requirements of Policy DM13 of the
Local Plan regarding residential annexes. The Policy is supportive when the need
for space cannot be met within the existing accommodation, provided it is
physically attached or closely related to the main dwelling so that it cannot be
subdivided from the main dwelling and 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. Finally the
proposal should respect and enhance both the character of the original dwelling
and the context of the surrounding area through high quality design. I have already
found that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area.
Moreover, the plans show the proposal as a separate dwelling with no
demonstrable dependence on the main dwelling and therefore does not meet
these requirements and as a result would not be supported as an ancillary dwelling
under Policy DM13.
12. Even if a condition was imposed to ensure that the proposed house was ancillary
to the public house. It would be very difficult to enforce and ensure that residents
only accessed Tiptree through the public house.
13. I am also aware that the masterplan for the Elms Farm currently undetermined
outline planning application proposes that New Road be altered to provide a
shared surface for pedestrians and cyclists to access the village which would
incorporate access to the appeal site. However, there is no certainty of if or when
this would come forward.
14. Consequently, I conclude that due to the poor access to the village by foot or cycle
the proposed a house would be not be in an accessible location contrary to
policies SG1, DM20 and DM21 of the Local Plan and Policy TIP02 of the
Neighbourhood Plan. Together these require that growth is accommodated at the
most accessible and sustainable locations and that accessibility of development is
improved through the promotion of walking and cycling as an integral part of
development and give priority to safe routes for the movement of people walking
and cycling.
East Coast RAMS and Infrastructure
15. The Colne Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA), the Blackwater Estuary Special
Protection Area (SPA), Abberton Reservoir Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA)
and the Essex Estuaries Special Area of Conservation (SAC) form the suite of
protected sites in the East Coast RAMS. They are wetlands of international
importance which are prone to damage from recreational disturbance.
16. Any proposal to increase the local population through the development of housing
within the Zone of Influence, which includes the appeal site, will have a likely
significant effect on the integrity of the East Coast Rams due to an increase in
recreational use of the protected sites.
17. Similarly, the Council considers that as the proposal will result in a new permanent
residential dwelling and therefore an increase in the population, then in
accordance with its Provision of Community Facilities Supplementary Planning
Document adopted in July 2013 and the Provision of Open Space, Sport and
Recreation Supplementary Planning Document adopted in July 2006 contributions
should be made to the provision of relevant facilities. The council has identified
local projects to which such contributions should be directed to ensure that they
are directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale
and kind.
18. In this instance though the appeal site already includes residential
accommodation. Even though this is through the provision of temporary buildings,
the residents are there and could remain there for the foreseeable future. Hence
the proposal would result in a net reduction of occupants. In my view therefore
there would be no increase in population that would mean increased pressure on
the East Coast RAMS. Therefore, there would be no likely significant effect on the
integrity of the protected sites. Similarly contributions are not necessary to make
the development acceptable or to make the development acceptable in planning
terms.
19. For the reasons above, I conclude that the proposal would not have a likely
significant effect on the integrity of the Essex Coast RAMS and would make
acceptable provision for community facilities and sport and recreation. There
would therefore be no conflict with Policies SP2 and SP6 of the Colchester
Borough Local Plan 2013-2033 Part 1 adopted 2012 (Local Plan Part 1). Policies
ENV1 and DM2 of the Local Plan Part 2 and Policy TP14 of the Neighbourhood
Plan. Together these require that all development must be supported by the
provision of infrastructure, services and facilities that are identified to serve the
needs arising from the development and mitigation measures identified in the
Essex Coast Recreational disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy will be
sought.
Planning Balance and Conclusion
20. I have found that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance
of the area, would harm the significance of a Grade II listed building and would not
be in an accessible location contrary to the development plan as a whole.
21. Although the proposal would be for one dwelling, given that there would be a net
loss of residential accommodation on the appeal site this would not bring
associated social and economic benefits. There would be some minor economic
benefits from the construction phase. The removal of the existing structures on site
would also benefit the character and appearance of the area and the significance
of the listed building although given their relative unobtrusiveness, only in a minor
way.
22. The appellant states that the proposal would also be for self-build. I haven’t been
supplied with details of the Councils supply of self-build permissions. However,
even if I could give this significant weight and its provision as such be
appropriately secured, collectively the public benefits would still not be sufficient to
outweigh the great weight I give to the harm to the heritage asset which in itself
would be a strong reason to dismiss the appeal.
23. The proposal is contrary to the development plan and the considerations I outline
above are not sufficient to outweigh the conflict. For that reason the appeal is
dismissed.
Zoe Raygen
INSPECTOR