Maldon District: Detailed plans for 18 homes on Woodham Mortimer driving range refused over ‘cramped’ affordable housing concerns

By Ben Shahrabi 7th Oct 2023

Local News

Local News by Ben Shahrabi 7th Oct 2023

The next stage of plans to build 18 homes on a driving range in Woodham Mortimer have been refused by Maldon District Council.

Outline permission was granted in February, subject to a Section 106 agreement. But reserved matters, which detail the development's appearance and layout, were rejected this week.

Development on the seven-acre site is set to include two, three and four-bedroom homes, each with their own garage and parking.

The reserved matters refer to the provision of affordable housing on the site. However, in its decision, Maldon District Council said it fails to meet the district's Local Housing Needs Assessment.

Under reasons for its refusal, the council said: "The disparity between the design, layout, and positioning of the Affordable Dwellings and the market dwellings would cause demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the site, wider area, and countryside.

"The Affordable Housing would appear cramped into the site, in a prominent location and would not adhere to the prevailing pattern of development causing material harm."

There was also a lack of information regarding landscaping, noise and ecology, the council said.

Meanwhile, residents have shared a mixture of opinions, with one describing the plans for a reported 16 per cent increase in homes in the village as "unacceptable".

However, residents who live near the range say their cars have been damaged by golf balls landing on their property. There are concerns over a risk of serious injury or even death if a ball were to hit a person on the head.

"To put housing on the site would be welcome by us and remove a major concern," they said.

In October 2021, previous proposals to demolish the golf range and build 25 new homes were refused. Another application for the same number of homes was refused in October 2020.

At the time of the last rejection, officers said it would represent the "sprawl of development into the open countryside" and would result in the "unjustified loss of an employment use, community facility, tourism facility and sports and leisure facility".