Issue - meetings

26/00138/OUTM Land South Of Threeways And 45 The Street, Latchingdon, Essex

 

 

Meeting: 22/09/2026 - District Planning Committee (Item 6)

6 26/00138/OUTM Land South Of Threeways And 45 The Street, Latchingdon, Essex pdf icon PDF 378 KB

To consider the report of the Director of Place, Planning and Growth, (copy enclosed, Addendum to be circulated)*.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Application Number 

26/00138/OUTM  

Location 

Land South Of Threeways And 45 The Street, Latchingdon, Essex  

Proposal 

Outline planning application with all matters reserved except for means of access, for up to 140 dwellings (Use Class C3), including 40% affordable housing; new site access and internal access roads; a new village centre (Use Class E(a)); flexible employment space (Use Class E); car and cycle parking; landscaping; sustainable urban drainage systems; public open space and footpaths; community woodlands and allotments; together with associated infrastructure. 

Applicant 

EJ Latchingdon Ltd 

Agent 

Mr Matthew Driscoll - MJD Planning Ltd 

Target Decision Date 

2 October 2026 (EoT)  

Case Officer 

Matt Bailey 

Parish 

Latchingdon 

Reason for Referral to the Committee / Council 

Major application 

 

An Addendum was published prior to the meeting containing additional consultation responses and applicant information. It also contained more information relating to the flood risk sequential test, foul water drainage and highways.

 

The Officer presented the report. Following this an Objector, Emma Derham, a representative of Latchingdon Parish Council Councillor Phil Simcock and the Agent Matt Driscoll addressed the Committee.

 

Following this a discussion between Councillor A Fittock and Officers ensued focusing on the Sequential Test for flood risk. The Councillor raised concerns over the robustness of the assessment of alternative sites, he suggested that several alternative sites appeared capable of accommodating the proposed housing and questioned whether the applicant had applied overly restrictive criteria. He asked why the Inspector’s previous conclusions had been given limited weight. Officers responded that the applicant had carried out a district-wide search for alternative sites. They considered that the submitted assessment, together with the additional information provided, represented a proportionate response to the sequential test and addressed the matters raised by the Planning Inspector.

 

Councillor Fittock maintained that the purpose of the sequential test was to direct development towards areas at lower risk of flooding and did not consider that this had been achieved, and that passing the sequential test was a fundamental policy requirement. He questioned whether the proposal should proceed when alternative sites without comparable flooding or infrastructure constraints might be available.

 

Councillor S J N Morgan then proposed that this application be deferred so further assessment and information for the sequential test could be provided. This was duly seconded and upon a vote being taken this was approved.

 

RESOLVED that the application be DEFFERED to a future meeting of this Committee to allow further information and assessment in relation to the sequential test to be carried out.