Cheshunt homes for older people have won planning permission on a former school playing field behind Goffs Lane and Churchgate in Hertfordshire. Inspector Jennifer Wallace allowed Anchor’s appeal on 13th October 2026, overturning Broxbourne Borough Council’s refusal. The approved scheme includes 71 apartments and 22 bungalows, with access, landscaping and improved parking for the scout hut.
The decision concerns 93 homes intended as an entirely affordable scheme, rather than unrestricted housing for the general market. Occupation is limited by condition to people aged 55 or over as their sole or principal residence, together with any spouse or partner. It also leaves detailed drainage, design and construction requirements to be approved before the relevant works proceed.
I would read this as an approval with clear boundaries. The Cheshunt homes address an identified need for specialist accommodation, but the inspector still examined their appearance, the nearby Grade I listed church and requests for financial contributions. For neighbours and prospective residents, the permission establishes what may be built and how it must be controlled; it does not establish an opening date.
What the Cheshunt homes permission covers
Appeal 6004350 relates to application 07/24/0466/F. Anchor challenged the council’s refusal of planning permission, and the inspector visited the site on 27th May 2026. The scheme combines a three-storey apartment building with bungalows, pumping and electrical substations, external works and a new access arrangement using Goffs Lane.
Broxbourne’s adopted Local Plan already allocates this land for accommodation for older people. Policy CH11 identifies an indicative 75 dwellings in a parkland setting. The inspector assessed the actual 93-home proposal against that allocation and the wider planning policies, rather than treating the indicative figure as an automatic ceiling.
The site was formerly a school playing field and remains undeveloped. Landscaping bounds three sides, with residential properties beyond two of those boundaries. The proposal places bungalows around the developed edges and an approximately U-shaped apartment building towards the southern part of the site, with open space and landscaping.
Why the apartment building was accepted
The council’s concerns about design did not persuade the inspector that the Cheshunt homes would harm the area’s character. She recognised that a three-storey building with long elevations would have considerable mass. Wings, gables, variations in windows and balconies would help break up its appearance.
Surrounding homes are mainly two storeys, although dormers and extensions create some taller forms. The church, the tower of the council offices and the former vicarage also provide larger buildings in the area. The inspector considered that the proposed height would therefore not be entirely out of character.
There was no requirement to copy one particular architectural style. The existing neighbourhood contains varied detailing, and the inspector accepted the proposed entrance and balcony arrangements. She also distinguished seeing a building from finding planning harm, stating: “Nor does visibility equate to harm.”
That is a useful distinction if you live beside a development site. I would focus any objection on the actual effect of the design, massing and relationship with neighbouring homes. Here, the inspector found acceptable separation and no material loss of sunlight or daylight to properties on Churchgate and Goffs Lane.
Affordable housing and financial contributions
The Cheshunt homes prompted requests for contributions towards libraries, waste services, fire and rescue, sustainable transport and local medical practices. By the appeal stage, the main parties agreed those financial contributions were unnecessary. The inspector accepted that position on the evidence before her.
The decision explains that the scheme is intended to be 100% affordable, with the rental element of the shared-ownership bungalows at a social rent. It also meets an evidenced need for housing for older people. A proposed nomination arrangement would house people already living locally, potentially redistributing existing demand on services.
Claims about additional delivery costs were mentioned, but the inspector expressly noted the absence of substantive evidence for them. The result should therefore not be presented as a general exemption from contributions for retirement housing. The inspector applied the statutory tests to this scheme and its particular circumstances.
Affordable provision for the Cheshunt homes is addressed through an agreement under section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972. This requires a further unilateral undertaking if the appeal succeeds. A unilateral undertaking is a legal commitment made by the relevant landowner or developer, rather than a planning condition.
The submitted agreement includes a draft planning obligation securing affordable housing and a nomination agreement for people needing specialist affordable accommodation. Hertfordshire County Council owns the land. The inspector accepted the agreement as an appropriate mechanism, and found that the necessary obligation met the statutory tests.
I would keep the two findings separate. The inspector accepted a legal route to securing affordable homes and occupancy nominations, while rejecting the need for the requested financial contributions. If you are promoting another scheme, the evidence about local need and service demand would require its own assessment.
The listed church still mattered
The Church of St Mary is Grade I listed, giving its conservation considerable importance in the decision. The open appeal site allows views of the church, but the inspector found no demonstrated historic or functional relationship requiring that land to remain undeveloped. The layout retains views towards the church tower.
The Cheshunt homes would nevertheless cause some harm to the church’s significance through development within its setting. The inspector assessed that harm at the very lowest level and concluded that the public benefits of affordable housing for older people clearly outweighed it. This was a balancing exercise, rather than a finding of no heritage harm.
The Local Plan allocation also mattered to the former playing field. The inspector considered that its loss as open space had already been accepted through the allocation. A community hall required by the policy concerns land outside this application; community rooms within the apartments are controlled through a management condition.
Conditions govern construction and occupation
The permission carries 25 conditions. Development must begin within three years and follow the approved plans, subject to an additional design requirement. Before work proceeds beyond ground-floor slab level, amended apartment elevations must be approved, showing at least gable features on the central balcony structures.
Several matters must be dealt with before construction starts. These include tree protection, drainage details, temporary drainage arrangements, flood mitigation, access works, a construction management plan, contamination assessment and archaeological arrangements. Permission to build does not remove those approval requirements.
The conditions also control the occupation of the Cheshunt homes. Access roads and parking must be provided before use, while the off-site access works are required before first occupation. A landscape and community facilities management plan must be approved before occupation, and a detailed travel plan follows within six months of first use.
Condition 22 restricts the dwellings to people aged 55 or over as their sole or principal residence and any spouse or partner. The inspector declined a wider proposed category covering carers, dependants and other household members because it would go beyond the allocation policy and the basis on which the scheme was assessed.
Other controls require bird and bat boxes and a habitat management and monitoring plan covering 30 years from completion. Certain permitted development rights for roof alterations are removed. Groundwater protection and intrusive foundation works are also controlled, reflecting the site’s previous use and infilling.
What happens next
The appeal approval establishes the permission, but the Cheshunt homes still require the relevant condition approvals and implementation steps. The decision does not provide a verified construction start, completion programme or date when homes will be available. Prospective residents should seek those details from the housing provider.
For anyone preparing a comparable proposal, the useful lesson is how the design, allocation, specialist housing need and legal arrangements worked together. This is an inspector’s decision on a particular site, not a court judgment or an entitlement to the same outcome elsewhere.
You can read the complete official decision and conditions on the Planning Inspectorate’s service. Our planning appeals guide explains the process, while our development plan guide explains why an allocation matters.
0 Comments