Planning Application 25/00578/OUTM – Hall Farm, Maldon

Maldon Society Response:

In light of the size and strategic significance of the proposed development, we have made a considerable effort in respect of our response:

​

• we brought the application to the attention of those attending our recent public meeting;

• we e-mailed the whole of our membership;

• we posted links on our website.

In all three cases, we invited members to review details of the application, and then to send us their comments.  We received more than twenty written submissions, together with a similar number of oral comments.

Comments were collated and analysed, reviewed at the Society’s recent committee meeting (17th July) and form the basis of our response:

​

• A small number were either in favour of the development (with important caveats) or felt, despite being against the development, that the chances of ‘refusal’ by MDC were so low that our best bet is to try to ameliorate the worst aspects of the proposal;

• The overwhelming majority were against the proposed development, and a significant number were very strongly against it.

 

Given that reaction, we have no hesitation in signalling our strong rejection of this proposal, and urge Maldon District Council not to grant planning permission.

The reasons for that position are set out under TWELVE headings below:

​

1. Transport/cars

Most respondents report that Maldon is already at a standstill during rush hour; that the road system is already inadequate; and that more houses (any more houses) will only make the situation worse.  While a handful suggested that the proposed new roundabout may slow traffic (and thus improve safety and reduce noise) on the bypass, most wonder about how the new residents will access the town centre, schools, health care, their jobs etc.  More noise and pollution is seen as inevitable.  Some respondents think that the developers have deliberately downwardly-adjusted their traffic calculations in order to secure planning permission.  Several respondents suggest that disruption on the by-pass (and/or more traffic generally) will cause even more traffic in the High Street and Market Hill, with very bad consequences for air quality (and the Council’s air quality strategy).

​

2. Access

Some responses assert directly that the developers have mis-represented things: the distances from the scheme to the town centre are greater than claimed (“the shortest walk to Moot Hall is about 1km from the north of the development or 1.5km from the south”); and the chances of people walking/cycling as claimed are virtually zero.  This will yet further increase the pressure on the roads.

​

3. Other infrastructure
Most respondents point out that Maldon’s GPs, schools, health facilities, energy infrastructure etc is already inadequate, and the new scheme will simply make things worse.  One or two respondents suggest that the scheme should be used as leverage – the Council will surely have to sort things out if there are to be new houses.

 

4. Design
A few respondents had the opportunity to examine the type and size and design of houses proposed for the site.  There are high levels of suspicion about the quality of housing, the proportion of affordable housing, the suggestion of some higher (three storey) buildings and the size of front gardens etc.  Conversely, it was pointed out that the density is actually low in comparison with other ‘suburb’-type developments.  In the round, the proposal raises suspicions as to the developer’s real intentions.

 

5. Nursery 
The offer of land to be allocated to a nursery is generally regarded with derision (it won’t actually get built, what happens when the children grow up, why not actually offer to build it via an s106, why not allocate it to some sort of health facility that the town urgently needs, etc.)

 

6. Farmland
A small number suggest that the land needs to be retained for the growing of food.

 

7. Environment
Many people say that the development would be bad for the environment, would spoil an area of natural beauty (where many walk on a regular basis), would cause various kinds of pollution etc.  One or two pointed out that the new development would probably entail an increase in biodiversity compared to the mono-culture of a standard UK field.
 

8. Footprint
Some are concerned that the scheme is ‘outside’ the boundary of the town, and that Maldon’s ‘special character’ will soon be lost for ever.

 

9. New people
Some respondents assert that houses in other new developments in Maldon and Heybridge are being bought up by London Boroughs to house people, and they think this is unreasonable/ unacceptable.  Some others believe that Maldon’s population has already reached some more general upper limit.  Conversely, one or two respondents suggest that Maldon needs new, younger people, to ensure that there are enough people to work in the shops and cafes, and to provide all the health and care support that the older people will need.

 

10. Actual housing need
Several respondents point out that existing schemes have slowed down development and/or are struggling to sell their properties.  Is there actually any need for these new houses?  If the need is genuine, why has the scheme on a nearly adjacent site (15/01327/OUT) not moved forward since receiving permission (and periodically refreshing that permission e.g. 25/00096/NMA)?

 

11. The cemetery
Many respondents have family members buried at the cemetery, and most are extremely anxious that the cemetery will be spoiled by being so close to a new, large, noisy housing scheme.  Some note that the land allegedly allocated to the extension of the cemetery has been planted with vines.  One or two think that the ‘offer’ to extend the cemetery is simply a means of persuading the council to give the scheme permission.

 

12. Other

• As mentioned above, there is already outline permission (15/01327/OUT since 2015!) on land off Wycke Hill (and therefore only two or three hundred metres from the Hill Farm site) for 320 new homes and associated developments – surely Maldon District Council should first work with the owners of this site to bring forward new housing (if it’s needed) before granting yet further permissions?

• Some respondents fear that the threat of a planning appeal to a refusal to grant permission could unduly influence the decision-making process.  Maldon should, of course, play its part in the growth agenda; but not at the price of the quality of life of those that already live here, nor its extraordinary heritage.  A long-term, strategic perspective is surely called for in the case of this proposal.

• The developer’s report on ‘community engagement’ from 2023 is risible – the scale of community objections to the scheme are treated as little more than incidental.

• Some respondents suspect that the people behind this scheme are seeking outline planning permission so that they can then sell the land at huge profit, and the people to whom they sell it will swiftly begin the process of trying to build something very different (i.e. higher density, less green space, reduced commitment to PV etc).

We note, before closing, that there is a huge and unjust imbalance between the resources available to the developers to make the case for this scheme (at least three years, dozens of consultants, and perhaps millions of pounds) and the local community to respond (no money, a handful of volunteers and about four weeks).  There is surely a case for giving the community more time, perhaps even dedicated (council) resources, in cases such as this.  How can the people of Maldon be confident that a full and fair process lies behind the decision that you make?

In closing, thank you once again for having approached us.  As this submission makes clear, the Maldon Society is strongly against this proposal.
 

​

New recommendations for the future of St Peter's Hospital 

​

The working group established to review proposed changes to community hospital services has now submitted its recommendations to NHS Mid and South Essex. 

​

Key recommendations

The working group has made several important recommendations:

1. St Peter's Hospital, Maldon: Investment to keep the facility operational for approximately five years while capital funding is assembled for a purpose-built new facility, ideally on a portion of the current site. This new facility would house outpatient services and create vital new primary care space for local GP services.

2. Inpatient Care: Acknowledgment that the NHS cannot efficiently operate an inpatient unit in Maldon due to low utilisation (maximum of two stroke beds needed for Maldon residents at any given time).

3. Stroke Services: Implementation of 'Option B' featuring a "split bed" approach, ensuring Southend residents who require specialist stroke inpatient rehabilitation can remain local, reducing travel burden on visiting families.

4. Birthing Services: preserving the approximately 14,000 pre and post-natal appointments that currently take place at St Peter's Hospital, Maldon each year while maintaining midwife led births at the William Julien Courtauld birthing centre at Braintree Community Hospital.

​

​

National Picture

 In December the Government published its new National Planning Policy Framework for England.  This is a long and technical document which “provides a framework within which locally-prepared plans can provide for housing and other development in a sustainable manner”.  It will shape not only how Maldon District Council assesses all planning applications over the coming years but also how it – and we – put together the over-arching strategies for the development of our town.  The main changes will concern housing, but there’s lots there too about sustainable development, communities and the environment.

 

The Government has also begun two processes that will affect planning in Maldon:

 

• devolution – the Government has proposed that a Mayoral Combined County Authority is established covering Essex County Council, Southend on Sea City Council and Thurrock Council, to be known as the Greater Essex Combined County Authority.  The new Authority would have money and powers specifically to deal with housing and regeneration; local economic growth; adult skills; and local transport.  Essex County Council has voted to support the idea, and a consultation is underway.  The ambition is to have the changes completed in time for elections in spring 2026.

 

• local government reform – on a slightly longer timetable, the Government has invited district and county councils across England, including Essex, to ‘come forward’ with proposals for moving towards unitary authorities – that is, to merge county and district councils.  It is very possible that within two or three years Maldon District Council as we know it will no longer exist.

 

So some big changes are coming!

 

Local News

The large-scale housing developments around the town continue. Elsewhere, there has been a steady stream of planning applications that are a clear response to the climate crisis – photovoltaic cells on the Friends’ Meeting House, electric charging points at various places around the town, applications to replace air conditioning systems with heat pumps, and so on.  There has even been an application for some new and sustainable self-build homes, which don’t even need a developer!

 

These are very exciting, and suggest that Maldon is continuing to be a place of innovation and optimism.  Do come and talk to me about these and any other planning issues at one of the monthly meetings, or get in touch via the website.​​