Braintree Council considers hundreds of planning applications every year.

They range from chopping down trees to building extensions, new houses and changes to shops and businesses.

But what about those that fail?

Here, we look at projects recently thrown out by the council in the Halstead area.

Pullingers Motor Home Centre, Sudbury Road, Little Maplestead

What is it? Change of use of land for the storage and parking of motorcaravans and vehicles

Why didn’t the council like it? The council said it would be visible from the Public Right of Way to the north west of the site and from Sudbury Road travelling in a southerly direction towards Halstead. It added: “The proposal by way of extending in to an undeveloped area of agricultural land would warrant unjustified intrusion and harm to the character and appearance of the countryside setting and fail to have regard to the landscapes sensitivity to change.”

Read more >> Town set for parking charge overhaul in bid to modernise

High Street, Halstead 

What is it?  Variation to change of use of the first floor to residential and renovation of the second floor to provide two residential units. Variation would allow second floor layout change

Why didn’t the council like it? The planning decision said: “The proposal by way of the incoporation of a balcony and alterations to the roof would result in loss of historic fabric to the listed building and an incongruous alteration to the roof form, which is not considered essential to its continued viable use given the extant permission for the conversion and refurbishment of the heritage asset.”

 Land Adjacent to Bayley Street, Castle Hedingham

What is it? Erection of 1 No. two storey 4 bedroom dwelling house, detached double garage and gardens.

Why didn’t the council like it? The report said: “The proposal by way of its scale, design and appearance would detract from the character of the street scene, the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting of nearby heritage assets, resulting in a discordant development at odds with the locality and resulting in less than substantial harm to the significance of the heritage assets, which would not be outweighed by public benefits.”

Cole Green, Belchamp St Paul

What is it? Installation of outdoor swimming pool in the rear garden with associated plant room

Why didn’t the council like it? Planning officers said the plans would “be incongruous” within the garden setting and “in marked contrast to and of harm to the historic character of the listed building.”

Bower Hall Lane, Pentlow 

What is it? Conversion of barn into single dwelling with associated car parking

Why didn’t the council like it? The council said it would result in a “unduly dominant and unsympathetic form of development” which would be “detrimental to the character and significance” of a Grade II listed barn.