Protecting
The Dedham Vale

Until five and a half years ago Manningtree station announced itself by an avenue of poplar trees. Step off the train, cross the station car park & turn right you would be at the foot of one of the most celebrated walks in natural England, starting through the poplars & heading towards the heart of the Dedham Vale. Not far along the River Stour when the scene becomes remarkably familiar you might stop. You could be standing on the very spot John Constable set up an easel to paint his masterpiece 'The Hay Wain'.

The experience starts differently today. The poplars have been felled. And, to expand the car park, the adjacent sloping bank has been levelled with infill buttressed by a 190m sheet metal wall up to 4m tall. CCTV cameras watch. Darkness triggers a sharp white light that can be seen from miles around. This is no gateway to Dedham Vale. This is gateway to Guantanamo Vale.

The Dedham Vale is a 'legally protected' Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). What went wrong?

Note to reader

We are individuals from Manningtree, Essex, who, until March 2020, were privileged to enjoy the sanctuary of an 'Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty' (AONB) on our doorstep. However, while COVID ripped through the UK, a giant metal wall & car park ripped through our 'protected' sanctuary. How was this allowed to happen?

This is our attempt to explain (and, especially for the attention of Sir Bernhard Jenkin MP, to highlight the effect on a local running sore: traffic congestion).

We are not legal experts but members of the public who have invested considerable time to understand certain elements UK planning law. In doing so we have learnt that the devastation brought upon Manningtree & the Dedham Vale has come about through the misrepresentation of this law. Read on. We hope that this resource will be interesting, relevant & helpful to those like us.

We'd very much like to learn your views & experiences.
Click here to email

Greater Anglia's Manningtree proposal from ignored legal clause to build

July 2018

Planning advisor to Greater Anglia, Mott MacDonald Ltd, wrote a letter to Tendring District Council planning authority to
provide details of the development proposals and seek confirmation from Tendring District Council ('the LPA' hereafter) that an extension to the existing ground level car park is Permitted development

Mott MacDonald reminds the Council of the following planning law:
'Development by railway undertakers on their operational land required in connection with the movement of traffic by rail' is permitted development

In other words planning law permits Greater Anglia to develop on its station 'operational' land without having to seek planning permission. Providing a case can be made for development in connection with the movement of traffic by rail Greater Anglia can do more or less whatever it wants on such land.

Mott Macdonald goes on to claim that the development plot at Manningtree Station is 'operational' land. But is it?

The two subsections making upSection 263 of TCPA (Town & Country Planning Act) 1990 determine if a plot is 'operational'. Applied to the Manningtree Station development plot:

Subsection 1 determines that it might be operational

and

Subsection 2 overides subsection 1 & determines that it is NOT operational

So Mott MacDonald claims that its client's development plot is operational while Section 263 of the Town & Country Planning Act says that it is not. How then does Mott MacDonald back up its claim?

Buried within its near 2,000 word letter, Mott MacDonald misquotes Section 263 Subsection 1 & ignores Section 263 Subsection 2

TDC failed to notice anything wrong

March 2020

Taking on permitted development rights Greater Anglia built at Manningtree Station, including

Greater Anglia's Brandon proposal from ignored legal clause to High Court quash

In March 2020 Greater Anglia sent a very similar letter to Breckland District Council concerning a very similar proposal at its Brandon Station in Norfolk.

Again, buried in just under 2,000 words, Greater Anglia misquotes Section 263 Subsection 1 & ignores Section 263 Subsection 2. It then draws on the resulting text in support of its claim that Brandon Station development plot is operational land.

Again, the planning authority - Breckland District Council this time - failed to notice anything wrong with the letter and decided that the scheme is permitted development.

However, taking Breckland's decision to the High Court, SAVE Britain's Heritage claimed that Breckland District Council had failed to consider lawfully whether the car park was entirely on operational land. The Council had failed to consider Section 263 subsection 2 of TCPA.

The High Court agreed. See Dad's Army station saved from bulldozers.

'Worst bottleneck in Essex' will get worse

All station traffic to & from Suffolk (including Ipswich) passes through a single lane underpass (or negotiates the level crossing to its east). Commenting before the near 40% percent increase in station car park capacity, Cllr Carlo Gugliemi labelled it 'the worst bottleneck in Essex'.

Sir Bernhard Jenkin MP posts on his website:
For years now, I have been pushing for progress to rectify the insufferable traffic issues, alongside Cllr Carlo Guglielmi, Tendring Councillors, and my colleague James Cartlidge MP, who represents the Suffolk side of the Stour

and

There is understandable irritation amongst residents who are often caught in the jams that is so often backed up through the town

and

Progress has been slow and it is a harder nut to crack than many of us had hoped.

and

We cannot simply wait for improvements while residents are left with this intolerable situation, especially at rush hour. I convened a task force with Cllr Guglielmi to get to grips with this issue once and for all, and it remains one of my top priorities to see fixed.

www.bernardjenkin.com

August 2025

Dear Sir Bernhard,

Please be aware that between the time you posted the above & COVID shut down station traffic the problem merely got worse.

London commuters are now returning & those insufferable traffic issues that you refer to are also returning. The only difference between then & now is that station car park capacity is nearly 40% greater (and thousands of new homes straddle the underpass). Your term 'irritation amongst residents' does not begin to reflect the mood amongst residents.

This is, as you must surely know, a ticking traffic time bomb.

It has been over five years since you posted the above. You have made the issue an election pledge. Is it still one of your 'top priorities to see fixed'?

Yours sincerely,

A number of your constituents

Why people drive from all over Suffolk to park at Manningtree Station

In a pre-works letter to Tendring District Council, planning advisor to Greater Anglia, Mott MacDonald Ltd, writes that the car park (at the time) is

operating over-capacity hence a car park expansion Scheme is required

London commuters are sucked in to Manningtree station from Ipswich (& all over Suffolk) by finacial incentives to use the station. (Two examples are below.) No financial incentives, no need to expand the car park.

Ipswich Station Manningtree Station
Annual rail pass to London £8,592 £7,488
Season parking ticket £2,850 £2,020

Of course Greater Anglia can attempt to solve its supply & demand problem (see below) as it wishes. But 'Greater Anglia' should pay. Not Manningtree & the Dedham Vale.

(Ipswich - Manningtree: 11 miles)

Greater Ipswich population: 139,638
Ipswich Station parking spaces: 494

Greater Manningtree population: 8,619
Manningtree Station parking spaces: 836