Plans for a significant affordable housing development for older residents in Cheshunt have been unanimously rejected by Broxbourne Borough Council's planning committee, following controversial comments comparing the proposed buildings to a crematorium.

The ambitious scheme, put forward by Anchor Hanover Group, would have delivered 93 affordable homes specifically designed for people aged 55 and over on a former playing field south of Goffs Lane and west of Churchgate. The development comprised a three-storey block containing 71 flats alongside 22 bungalows, representing what the applicant described as an "unusual" level of specialist affordable housing for older people.

The flats were planned to be available at 60 percent of market rents, while the bungalows would have been offered under shared ownership arrangements. Additional amenities included a ground-floor community room for residents' groups and parking provision with individual spaces for each bungalow plus 58 additional spaces for flat residents.

At Tuesday's planning committee meeting (29 July), councillors went against officers' recommendations to approve the scheme. The decisive moment came when Councillor Yvonne Mobbs proposed rejection, drawing an unflattering comparison that resonated with fellow committee members.

"When you look at these pictures, it just looks like a crematorium," Mobbs stated. "How can we put our elderly residents living in something that will remind them of what's just around the corner? I don't think these buildings are very picturesque. It just reminds me of Enfield Crematorium and, I'm sorry, I just can't want to put our elderly people in these buildings."

The committee unanimously supported Mobbs' proposal to refuse planning permission, citing grounds including "inappropriate use of land, the impact on the area, it's not in keeping with the area... it's too big, it's overlooked and there is going to be a problem with flooding."

The development site holds particular significance within Broxbourne's planning framework. The former playing field, previously used by St Mary's School before its relocation, was specifically allocated for older people's housing in the borough's Local Plan - the official blueprint governing development across the area. Access to the proposed homes would have been from Goffs Lane, as originally agreed in the Local Plan.

Despite this official designation, the project faced multiple concerns from councillors and residents. Flooding emerged as a persistent issue, with Hertfordshire County Council's flood department initially objecting to the plans in December before later withdrawing their objection after the applicant revised the proposal to remove four bungalows.

Environmental considerations played a significant role in the debate. Councillor Carol Crump expressed concern about "the loss of green space, which is all too prevalent in every council area," highlighting broader tensions between development needs and environmental preservation.

Public speaker David Taylor raised additional concerns, claiming the site was a "closed landfill" where risks had "not been properly evaluated." While the Environment Agency did not object to the proposals, they had suggested conditions requiring the developer to investigate potential land contamination and provide a comprehensive remediation strategy.

Robert Henderson, representing Anchor Hanover Group, attempted to emphasize the social benefits of the development during the meeting. "Anchor is going to build and operate the proposed development as assisted living for older people, and all 93 of the properties we're proposing will be affordable homes," he explained.

Henderson stressed that the development represented a "massive social benefit" that "far exceeds what your adopted policies would otherwise require." He also highlighted the scheme's environmental credentials, describing it as "low density" development that would "retain a parkland setting."

The rejection represents a significant setback for affordable housing provision in the area, particularly for older residents. With the site specifically allocated for such development in the Local Plan, the decision raises questions about how similar projects might be received elsewhere in the borough.

The unanimous nature of the rejection, combined with the stark language used by councillors, suggests that aesthetic concerns about the building design proved decisive in overriding both officer recommendations and policy allocations. The comparison to crematorium architecture appears to have struck a particular chord with committee members, overshadowing arguments about social need and affordable housing provision.

The decision leaves Anchor Hanover Group with limited options, potentially including an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate or a complete redesign of their proposals to address the committee's concerns about the buildings' appearance and scale.

Have questions or suggestions to improve our newsletter? Got a story to share? Email us at [email protected].

Interested in advertising with us? Drop us a line at the same email address.

If someone forwarded this email to you, be sure to thank them—and don’t miss out next time! Subscribe here.

Love the newsletter? ☕
Support it by buying me a coffee! Your contribution helps keep this weekly resource alive and thriving. Thank you!

Have a fab day!

Cheers,
Editor-in-chief | Emeka Ogbonnaya

P.S. Want to sponsor our newsletter? Email us at [email protected]