A decision on whether to build 29 discounted retirement homes in Tollesbury has been delayed in efforts to address concerns raised over the need for affordable housing of its type in the Maldon district.

The plans from developer Lewis & Scott to build the homes on land north of 48 Woodrolfe Road for local people aged 60 and over on below average incomes came before Maldon District Council's north western area planning committee last night (Wednesday, 30 March).

Nine of the homes would be offered at affordable rent, with the rest sold at a 20 per cent discount, all organised around a "social heart" community hub.

Helen Tidswell, from Lewis & Scott, told councillors there is a "critical shortage of affordable homes for older people" which is "particularly acute" in Maldon due to its ageing population.

She said: "People are living in properties that are unsafe, hard to manage and expensive to heat.

"For the majority, the prospect of downsizing is not realistic. What is available is too expensive, it's too far away, forcing people to choose between their health and staying close to their friends and their family."

Helen started the company with founder Robert Scott based on their experience of trying to help family members downsize.

"It was very very difficult," she said. "Our approach is very very simple - we design and build homes that are local, affordable and beautiful."

A report by Lewis & Scott says the number of people in the Maldon district aged 65+ is predicted to reach 23,800 by 2040 - a 38 per cent increase from 2020.

It says that, by 2040, one in four people aged 65+ in the district is expected to be living with a "long-term illness that limits their day-to-day activities - such as eating, bathing and dressing".

The evidence in the report includes national ONS data, local Experian data and the opinions and experiences of residents who have spoken to Lewis & Scott throughout the planning process.

There would be a £50 monthly maintenance fee on each property on the development, which would be spread over four acres of landscaped gardens, with prices starting from £248,000 after discount.

All two-storey buildings would have lifts or stairlifts.

The community has also been designed with dementia-friendly and therapeutic garden principles - including memory walks and sensory planting.

But planning officers at the district council recommended the development for refusal, after saying "insufficient information" had been submitted to show the homes meet the necessary criteria to be considered affordable and challenging the need for the level of specialist, affordable housing of its type in the district.

Case officer Anna Tastsoglou said: "It has not been demonstrated that the development would be able to provide affordable housing to meet the needs of those that cannot be met by the market within the district.

"Therefore, it is considered that the proposal would constitute accommodation based on aspirational lifestyle rather than actual need, even if the necessary submissions were able to demonstrate that the proposal constitutes affordable housing in accordance with the NPPF [National Planning Policy Framework].

"Although no objection is raised for the provision of affordable housing per se, officers consider that the submitted evidence is lacking in clarity and has not been able to demonstrate that there is a need for this quantum of this very particular type of development."

A report to councillors by officers raises concerns about the planned eligibility criteria for the homes, with Lewis & Scott proposing a maximum household pension income of £31,000 based on regional data.

The report says: "It is considered that the eligibility criteria in terms of income level are so broad they would not be able to target those whose needs are not met by the market, as required by the NPPF."

Tollesbury Parish Council has also raised concerns over the site's vulnerability to flooding from the nearby Blackwater Estuary.

Simon Plater, chairman of the parish council, told last night's meeting: "In particular, we have considerable concern about the position of the site and its potential significance of tidal flooding."

The Environment Agency has raised no objection to the plans and the site is in Flood Zone 1, the lowest-risk area.

Officers also commented on the level of development and its impact on the rural character and appearance of the area, particularly regarding the loss of woodland.

But Tollesbury resident Peter Hope, speaking in support of the development, told councillors it is "unrealistic to say that there's no need for this kind of development" in the village.

He said: "My friend is trying to cope with the effects of his dementia, anxiety, depression, insomnia, all taking a toll on him and his wife's life - the worry of the upkeep of the house and garden increases that burden.

"This development would mean they could stay in the village close to their friends and their network of support. There isn't an appropriate alternative for them - it's as simple as that.

"I know of other retired people who have had to move out of the village, they too had no options other than to move.

"Our circumstances are less dire, but as we age we will be less mobile at best. We will be unable to afford anything appropriate, even with any realised equity."

Councillor John Keyes, vice-chairman of the committee, said: "I think it's a fantastic idea - I would certainly encourage that in my ward rather than some of the developments that we are seeing."

He added: "Living in the area my whole life, I know the site well and I'm struggling to find why we shouldn't be doing this sort of thing in a lot of the outer villages. I'm really struggling."

98 letters have been submitted in support of the application, with 21 objections.

Councillor Maddie Thompson, chairman of the committee, said: "I'd be happier if there were a lot more rented and a certain amount just straightforward market."

She added: "It would save an awful lot of these complications."

Councillor Sue White proposed that members defer their decision to "see if we can get something more acceptable".

This was voted through, with six councillors for and one against.

The committee is set to make the final decision on the development at its next meeting on 18 May.