Colchester 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 of the five projects that were thrown out by the council this week.

New Church Road, West Bergholt

What is it?

Demolition of existing detached house and erection of 2 No. detached  dwellings

Why didn't the council like it?

The council said it did not meet policies within the local plan. 

The report added: "The proposal by virtue of its size, scale, and height together with its position on the site in relation to its boundaries and adjacent development would result in a cramped form of development to the detriment of the streetscene and out of keeping with the prevailing character of development in the locality.

"In essence the form and design of the dwelling would not respond positively to its setting which in combination to its size results in a large footprint causing a bulky and visually dominant development in the street scene."

The council said there was no a legally binding mechanism for planning obligations such as sport and recreation and community facilities. 

It also said the application did not meet habitat and species regulations. 

Redwood Close, Colchester

What is it?

Application to extend, refurbish and redevelop the existing 3  bedroom semi-detached dwelling to include demolition of the existing rear conservatory & rear patio & side to rear garden wall which has become unsafe. This proposal includes demolition of the existing front porch with failing flat roof over.

Why didn't the council like it?

The counsil's report said: "The proposed development is considered to be of poor design and materials that does not sit well in the context of the host dwelling. Subsequently, the proposal would harm the character of the host dwelling.

"The development is considered to be incongruous and discordant within the prevailing street scene and fails to enhance the character of the site and area."

Read more:

Cambridge Road, Colchester 

What is it?

Conversion of one ground floor flat to two ground floor flats, including single storey extensions and internal alterations, conversion of former coach house to one residential unit, car parking and associated works. 

Why didn't the council like it?

The council report said: "The proposal would result in substandard living conditions through inadequate private amenity space of a size and quality required and through significant overlooking into private amenity spaces and internal living areas.

"The subdivision of the site to provide private amenity spaces would result in a overdeveloped, cramped and awkward plot arrangement compared to others in the vicinity.

"The development would therefore harm the character and appearance of the area."

The council said there would also be 'significant under provision' of parking spaces and sizes.

The council said there was no a legally binding mechanism for planning obligations such as sport and recreation and community facilities. 

It also said the application did not meet habitat and species regulations. 

Land adjacent to 2 D'arcy Road, Colchester 

What is it?

Erection of 2No. semi-detached 2 bedroom houses.

Why didn't the council like it?

The council said it did not meet policies within the local plan. 

The report said: "The proposed dwellings would sit forward of the prominent building line. Whilst the proposed main form of the two semi-detached dwellings would be in keeping with the character of the area, the car ports are wholly inappropriate in this context.

"The car ports would be incongruous additions that detract from main built forms. The narrow pillars and void makes the exterior wall look weak, and the principal elevation appear overly wide and unbalanced.

"The discordance with the surroundings is further exacerbated by the proposed cladding which is a material that is alien to this area."

It added the dimensions of the parking spaces could lead to people parking in the highway. 

The council said there was no a legally binding mechanism for planning obligations such as sport and recreation and community facilities. 

It also said the application did not meet habitat and species regulations.