Below is Panfield Parish Council’s objection to Towerlands Phase 2.
We have also produced a guide for residents on the key points of our objection for ease which can be found here: Key Objections
Panfield Parish Council objects to planning application 26/00709/OUT for the proposed erection of up to 150 dwellings at Land North West Of Towerlands Panfield Road Braintree Essex.
This application follows the refusal of the previous scheme and its dismissal at appeal. The Parish Council’s primary concern is that, despite the volume of additional material submitted, the proposal itself remains largely unchanged in scale, location and overall approach. It does not materially address the fundamental issues previously identified by both the Local Planning Authority and the Planning Inspector.
The site lies outside the defined development boundary and is not allocated for housing within the Development Plan. The Planning Inspector previously concluded that this is not an appropriate location for residential development. The current application does not alter that position and remains contrary to the established spatial strategy.
The earlier appeal identified clear and substantive concerns, including the development appearing as an isolated and incongruous urban feature, harm to the rural character of the area, and significant visual impact within the wider landscape. Having reviewed the current submission, the Parish Council does not consider that these issues have been resolved. The site remains physically separate from both Panfield and Braintree and would continue to be read as a distinct block of development in the countryside. Landscaping proposals rely on planting that would take many years to mature and cannot mitigate the immediate and medium-term impact of the development.
The proposal would result in the loss of open agricultural land and introduce suburban form into a rural setting. The indicated density, of up to 39 dwellings per hectare, is not reflective of the character of Panfield and would significantly urbanise the site. The scale of development is not matched by clear or proportionate benefits to the existing community. The development would also further erode the buffer between Panfield and Braintree. The maintenance of this open aspect is a key characteristic of the village and is explicitly identified as essential within the Panfield Village Design Statement. The gradual erosion of this gap risks the coalescence of the two and the loss of Panfield’s distinct identity .
The Parish Council considers the proposal to be in direct conflict with the Panfield Village Design Statement. This document, produced with community input and in liaison with Braintree District Council, provides clear guidance on how development within the parish should be approached. It confirms that no additional housing allocations are required for Panfield and that development should be limited to small-scale infill within the village boundary. It discourages large-scale, high-density development and emphasises the importance of preserving the rural character, open views and quiet environment of the village, as well as maintaining the separation between Panfield and Braintree .
Despite this, the application fails to meaningfully acknowledge or engage with the Village Design Statement. This is particularly concerning given that the Design Statement formed a cornerstone of the Parish Council’s previous objection. Its omission from the applicant’s assessment demonstrates a lack of regard to locally established guidance and further highlights the absence of meaningful consultation. The Parish Council considers that this undermines the credibility of the proposal and reinforces the view that it has not been designed with the character or expectations of the village in mind.
There remain significant concerns in relation to highways and infrastructure. The application continues to rely on the Panfield Lane to Springwood Drive link road to support the development. This link road has not been completed and there is no certainty as to its delivery. As such, the development would place additional pressure on an already constrained local road network. The Parish Council also has local evidence of increasing traffic levels, with data from its speed indicator devices showing a noticeable rise in vehicle movements through the village since the implementation of the existing Towerlands development. This demonstrates that cumulative impacts are already being experienced and have not been adequately addressed within this application.
Congestion is already a significant issue on the surrounding road network, particularly along Panfield Lane near Tabor School, where peak-time traffic creates both safety concerns and increased exposure to vehicle emissions for children travelling to and from school. Traffic frequently backs up from Coldnailhurst Avenue through to Rayne Road. The Parish Council also notes that Panfield benefits from dark skies, and the absence of street lighting limits the ability to introduce further traffic calming measures. Increased traffic volumes and speeds therefore present an even greater safety risk.
In addition to traffic impacts, the Parish Council has ongoing concerns regarding infrastructure capacity. Local infrastructure is already under strain, with limited capacity in GP surgeries, dental provision and local schools. Residents have also experienced increased water pressure issues since the completion of the existing Towerlands development, and no clear or robust mitigation has been provided within this application to demonstrate how these issues will be resolved. This raises further concerns about the ability of local infrastructure to accommodate development of this scale.
The Parish Council also notes that Panfield does not benefit from regular public transport provision. The standard bus service serving the village was removed approximately three years ago, leaving residents with very limited public transport options. The site is not well integrated with existing services and facilities and relies heavily on future provision within Phase 1. This results in a development that is likely to be car-dependent and does not represent sustainable growth.
The Parish Council is also concerned about the practical implications of the development on local governance and service provision. Panfield Parish Council is a proactive authority that actively supports its residents through the provision and maintenance of open spaces, leisure facilities and allotments, and through the employment of a parish ranger to manage and enhance these assets. These services are delivered to meet the needs of the existing village and are valued by the community. The proposal would effectively create a separate residential area, disconnected from the existing village, but still within the parish. At approximately 150 dwellings, this represents a significant increase in the size of the parish, equivalent to around 50% of the existing village. To extend the same level of service provision to a large and physically separate development would place a disproportionate and unsustainable burden on the Parish Council’s resources and capacity.
The Parish Council also notes that while the application refers to the use of a Section 106 agreement, there is no detailed or secured S106 package provided. In light of the impacts already experienced by Panfield from the existing Towerlands development, and the absence of any meaningful benefit to the parish from that scheme, it would have been expected that this application would include clear provision to help mitigate the effects of further growth. This could reasonably include contributions towards the village hall, which serves as the social hub of the village and requires significant investment, as well as provision for highways infrastructure directly affecting Panfield, or resources to support the maintenance and development of open spaces. The absence of any such detailed provision further undermines the credibility of the proposal and fails to address the real impacts on the existing community.
The Parish Council also notes that a number of commitments associated with Phase 1, including retail, healthcare and sports provision, as well as the relief road connection to Springwood Drive, have not been delivered. This raises concerns about the credibility of the proposals and the likelihood of supporting infrastructure being provided in a timely manner, if at all. Experience from Phase 1 suggests a gap between approved plans and delivered outcomes, particularly in relation to community infrastructure, and there is a risk that similar reductions will occur in this phase.
A number of the submitted technical reports identify constraints which influence the layout of the development, including noise mitigation and drainage requirements. This indicates that the site is not naturally suited to development of this scale without significant intervention. The proposal would result in the loss of greenfield land and introduce engineered drainage solutions where natural infiltration is not feasible. In addition, a development of this nature would be likely to introduce street lighting to estate roads and public areas. This would further erode Panfield’s dark skies and rural character, which are valued aspects of the village environment. The proposal would also result in the loss of habitat and further pressure on local wildlife, which has already been displaced by surrounding development.
The Parish Council acknowledges that some consultation with residents has taken place. However, this occurred after the submission of the application and is not considered to be meaningful early engagement. It has not influenced the design of the scheme. The previous concerns raised by both the Parish Council and residents have not been addressed.
Finally, the Parish Council has concerns regarding the lack of transparency in the long-term development strategy for the area. There was no clear indication from earlier phases that expansion of this scale would follow, and this raises concerns about incremental development without a coherent or openly communicated plan.
In summary, the Parish Council considers that this application fails to overcome the reasons for refusal identified by both the Local Planning Authority and the Planning Inspector. The proposal remains inappropriate in principle, would cause harm to the landscape and character of the area, would further erode the separation between Panfield and Braintree, and would place additional and unmitigated pressure on local infrastructure and services. For these reasons, Panfield Parish Council strongly objects to the application.