A DEVELOPER has lost his fight to build 45 homes in Boxted.

Thomas Bates and Son wanted to develop Hill Farm, in Carters Hill, Boxted.

The former industrial estate has been marketed as a business park since 2006, but has failed to attract interest.

Colchester Council refused the application for homes and successfully defended the decision at a planning inquiry It was able to demonstrate it had enough other land available for homes for the next five years.

However, the council could hold a referendum in the future into whether residents want the site to provide affordable homes for people with a connection to Boxted.

Anne Turrell, councillor responsible for economic development and regeneration, said: “I am pleased with the result of this appeal process. It is the right decision for Boxted and the borough.

“The five-year supply means we can refuse unallocated sites and it was pleasing the inspector agreed the council had a five-year supply.

“Colchester’s local plan is at an advanced stage and these planning policies help to give a framework of evidence to help ensure development that does not meet the necessary criteria, can be legitimately refused.”

The council’s “sustainable settlements strategy” outlines that smaller villages, such as Boxted, which do not have the basic day-to-day services or frequent public transport, should not be expanded.

The inspector ruled because the development did not have good access links it contributed to the plan’s refusal.

Roger Goodland, managing director of Thomas Bates and Son, which also owns the land, said he was surprised by the decision.

He said: “The problem is it is not going to be used for employment land, there is no call for it. We will just put it to one side.”

The firm submitted the application for homes last year after its bid for a business park did not generate any interest due to other developments closer to Colchester, which were boosted by the creation of the new junction off the A12.

The planning application for 45 homes, including a mix of houses and bungalows, was turned down last July and the company lodged an appeal.

The developer would have contributed £210,000 towards the upkeep and improvement of the village playing field and social facilities.

However, villagers had concerns about an increase in traffic and lack of amenities.