- Decision
- approved, 2 September 2026
- Decided by
- Council planning committee: Maldon District Planning Committee (minded-to decision for non-determination appeal; tied vote, chair's casting vote)
- Authority
- Maldon (East of England)
- Application reference
- 26/00066/OUTM
- Procedure
- committee
- Development
- Outline, up to 149 dwellings (40% affordable), 5.19 ha open space incl. 3 ha SANG, access from Mell Road
- Homes
- 149
- Site context
- open countryside, settlement edge, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing land supply
- 4.1 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S3(2), S4, S5(1)(j)(i), TR3, HE6
- Development plan policies
- Maldon LDP 2017 S1, S2, S8, D2, H1
- Main issues
- S5(1)(j); part-inside/part-outside settlement S3(2); sustainable location of larger village; cumulative impact
Summary
A Gladman outline scheme for 149 homes (40% affordable) on fields behind Mell Road, Tollesbury, a "larger village" outside the Green Belt. The Council has a supply of about 4.1 years. Officers treated it as S5(1)(j) development: evidenced unmet need, physically well related to the village, and infrastructure capacity shown. On the "substantially outweighed" balance they recommended the committee say it would have approved. The vote tied and the chair's casting vote carried approval. The decision will be the Council's position at the non-determination appeal.
Issues and findings
- S3(2) split site. Only the access points lie inside the settlement boundary. "policies S4 and S5 should be applied to the relevant parts which are inside or outside of the settlement boundary" (Report ¶5.2.7–5.2.8).
- S5(1)(j): PASS. "The Site is well-related to Tollesbury, as an edge of village development with existing development on two sides of the site … The Site would not have any break in between the proposed development and Tollesbury" (¶5.2.11).
- TR3: PASS, qualified. Buses to Colchester, Witham and Maldon "generally run every 30 minutes as a total service … no services on Sundays … it lacks bus services in the evening" (¶5.2.19). Officers still found a sustainable location "however, acknowledge that there would be an element of reliance on private motor vehicle trips which cannot be fully addressed" (¶5.2.21). New footway connections were secured (¶5.2.16).
- Connectivity Tool. Members questioned the site's score. "Members were advised that the sustainable location was largely established through appeals" (Minutes 214).
Planning balance
S5(1). For: 149 homes including 40% affordable (substantial); open space and SANG, construction, spend, BNG, energy (moderate); pedestrian links (limited). Against: spatial strategy conflict (limited, because policies are out of date); landscape and visual (moderate); agricultural land (limited); heritage (limited). "the benefits of the application would not be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (¶5.16.16).
What made the difference
Maldon's modest shortfall (4.1 years, disputed downwards) was enough to engage S5(1)(j). "Well-related" was read as physical adjacency without a gap. The TR3 test was met by village-level services and a daytime-only bus service. Members were split down the middle, and the Connectivity Tool question went unanswered on the numbers.
Transferable points
- S5(1)(j) is engaged by any supply shortfall, here 4.1 years, not only an acute one (¶5.2.5, ¶5.2.10).
- "Physically well-related" was treated as adjoining existing development on two sides with "no break" (¶5.2.11).
- A village with daytime-only buses (none in the evenings or on Sundays) and walkable village services was accepted under TR3, with car reliance acknowledged (¶5.2.19–5.2.21).
- S3(2): where the access lies inside the settlement, S4 applies to that part and S5 to the rest (¶5.2.7).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| S3(2) | pass | site part inside (access points) and part outside settlement boundary; S4 applied to access, S5 to the rest | |
| S5(1)(j)(i) | pass | 4.1-year supply (appellant says 3.6); edge of 'larger village', development on two sides, no gap; infrastructure can accommodate with contributions | |
| TR3 | pass | short walk to primary school, bus stops, shop, pharmacy, pub; buses roughly every 30 min combined 07:00-19:30 weekdays, none evenings/Sundays; officers accept 'an element of reliance on private motor vehicle trips'; £440k bus contribution | |
| HE6 | harm | limited | low less-than-substantial harm to Grade II Monks' House and Bohuns Hall; limited harm to Protected Lane (NDHA) |
| N2 | harm | limited | loss of c.9.4 ha Grade 3 land |
| S5(1) | pass | housing incl. 40% affordable substantial weight; landscape harm moderate; spatial-strategy conflict limited; not substantially outweighed |
Key facts
- Earlier outline for 90 dwellings on same site refused 2019
- Non-determination appeal lodged 6 July 2026 while consultation still running
- Supply 4.1 years (Council) / 3.6 (appellant at Spratts Farm appeal 6005664)
- Members asked about the Connectivity Tool score; officers said sustainability of Tollesbury "largely established through appeals"
- Equality of votes; chair's casting vote to approve
Related decisions
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.