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 eight projects that were thrown out by the council in July.

  • One Railway, Marks Tey Railway Station

What is it?

Application for prior notification of proposed demolition of former works/industrial units on access road from northern car park to provide 200 cycle spaces

Why didn't the council like it?

The council said prior approval was required and cannot be approved until it receives a full demolition method statement and an ecological appraisal of the building and any areas to be impacted.

  • Land outside Tesco, Rawstorn Road, Colchester

What is it?

Application for prior notification of proposed development of a 20m high monopole supporting 6 no. antennas and 2 no. transmission dishes, 4 no, equipment cabinets and development works

Why didn't the council like it?

The council refused the prior approval because the scale, height and form of the proposed 20m Monopole would be very prominent at the proposed location.

The council said it "look out of place, thus representing an unacceptable visual intrusion".

It added the applicant had not suitably demonstrated the need for the proposal in the area or properly investigated potential alternative sites.

  • Land north of The Maltings, Mersea Road, Colchester

What is it?

Outline application for one home.

Why didn't the council like it?

The site proposed for the new dwelling lies to the North of the Grade II Listed Building known as The Maltings.

The council said the application fails to describe the contribution made by the setting of the listed building to its significance as a designated heritage asset.

It said there was also insufficient details on how habitats could be affected and a legal document for planning obligations was not submitted.

  • Marsh Crescent, Rowhedge

What is it?

Proposed front and side two storey extension

Why didn't the council like it?

The council's report said: "The proposal by virtue of its scale, form and detailed design, together with its position on the site in relation to the host property and adjoining development, would represent an inappropriate and unacceptable form of development."

It also raised concerns about the impact on the Rowhedge Conservation Area.

  • London Road, Colchester

What is it?

Proposed gable ended dormer to front elevation

Why didn't the council like it?

It said there are no other front dormer windows on any of the other dwellings on this part of London Road.

The report added: "The harm of the alien feature on the street scene would be greater due to this greater exposure to the public."

  • Station Road, Tiptree

What is it?

Proposed two bedroom attached dwelling with additional parking spaces on existing rear garden

Why didn't the council like it?

The council said the proposed parking would create noise, light and vibration disturbance to both properties.

It added: "The proposal would result in the intensification of a substandard access and provides insufficient pedestrian and vehicular visibility splays."

  • School Road, Copford

What is it?

Proposed car port

Why didn't the council like it?

The council said the carport would be "out of context and character" with the existing street scene.

It said a tree/hedge survey would also need to be submitted.

  • Great Tey Road, Little Tey

What is it?

New vehicular access to Great Tey Road

Why didn't the council like it?

The council report said: "The proposed new point of access represents a not insignificant interruption in the well established and currently unbroken hedgerow running parallel to the site’s eastern boundary."

It said it would have an "urbanising impact on the street scene."

  • Chitts Hill, Colchester

What is it?

Removal of one section of existing wall and erection of new boundary wall.

Why didn't the council like it?

The refusal report said: "The proposed development does not respect the dwelling’s edge of settlement location and as a result of its inappropriate design the proposed development fails to respect the prevailing character of the street scene."

  • Mersea Road, Abberton

What is it?

Proposed three bedroom bungalow with associated garage

Why didn't the council like it?

The council said the proposal would result in the creation of a dwelling in an unsustainable countryside location.

It said there was also insufficient details on how habitats could be affected and a legal document for planning obligations was not submitted.

  • Land adjacent 2 Smallwood Road, Colchester

What is it?

A detached dwelling house with associated parking facilities

Why didn't the council like it?

The report said: "Backland and infill development of this form is not a common feature of the street or the surrounding area and the introduction of a dwelling within the small garden plot of the application property would appear incongruous."

It said the proposed development would be in would be in close proximity to the existing neighbouring properties.

The council also said there was insufficient details on how habitats could be affected and a legal document for planning obligations was not submitted.

  • Santander, High Street

What is it?

Proposed sliding door located in front of the entrance lobby.

Why didn't the council like it?

The report said: "The proposed sliding door located in front of the entrance lobby by reason of its design, form and prominent location, would detract from the attractive shop front."