A new development of 281 much-needed new homes is to be built in Heybridge, near Maldon.

We will be building 281 new Charles Church homes on land east of Broad Street Green Road, after permission was granted on appeal.

Of the new homes being built, 50% will be offered to those in housing need through either the shared ownership scheme or affordable rent via a registered housing partner.

The new community will offer a mix of bungalows, apartments and larger family homes, and the designs include a selection of homes built to M4(2) standards allowing for future adaptations and others to M4(3) standards allowing for wheelchair accessibility.

New vehicle access points will be created and the development will offer pedestrian access route to encourage active travel. Areas of public open space will be incorporated into the new community, for the benefit of existing residents as well as those moving in, and a play area will be built for children.

Through our developer contributions, we will invest £139,300 in NHS services locally, £1,074,000 in primary schools and £986,000 in secondary education. An additional £21,861 will be provided for library services and £46,044 to Essex Coast RAMS.

As part of the appeal process, plans for offsite biodiversity, landscaping and drainage on land north of Heybridge Swifts Football Club, was also approved, enabling Persimmon Homes to enhance biodiversity in the area and mitigate the impact of the new homes.

A spokesman for Charles Church Essex said: “We are delighted to see this scheme approved, allowing us to provide high-quality, new housing solutions for local people in Heybridge.

“This is an exciting project for the area and one that will bring huge benefits for the wider community in Maldon District, with half of these new homes being transferred to a local housing association partner to directly address the council’s housing waiting list.”

Maldon District Council had originally refused the applications on the grounds that they had sufficient housing supply to meet their needs. However, this could not be demonstrated at the time of the appeal.

The council withdrew their objections ahead of the planning appeal and a report from the planning inspector stated: “As the Council’s original assessment of the applications did not identify any harm to protected areas or assets of particular importance, or any other adverse impacts, that would provide a strong reason for refusing the proposals, it accepts that permission should be granted.”