Access road from Church Lane into Saxon Meadow should NOT be included in planned development. Meadow should also NOT be included (or half of it) should not be included in the planned development. Neither are a pre-requisite to planned building. Neither of these two “land grabs” is legally compliant so the only way to make them legally compliant is for them not to happen and the CPOs to fall away.

I think that the CPO is legally flawed. My understanding is that a CPO is a last-ditch process where it is
deemed to be in the public interest and is needed for the proposed building. Both CPOs (the piece of land
at the entrance of Saxon Meadow) and the Meadow land (behind Saxon Meadow to the west) are NOT
required for the proposed building.
In respect of the access (it is the ONLY access) to Saxon Meadow for residents and visitors I think this
would be deemed unlawful and an incorrect use of the powers for which CPOs were designed. Why?
Because if it were to proceed as on the plans how can denying access to residents to their own properties
be deemed to be in the public interest?
The CPO in relation to the meadow (to the west) will deprive residents of an open space which is used for
the residents social activities and relaxation and provides an important amenity to residents who do not
have their own designated gardens. We are in the process of reintroducing our bee hives and creating a
wildflower meadow to create bio diversity and a beautiful space for residents to relax and enjoy – important
for their well-being and mental health.
Putting half of the meadow under a CPO is effectively a cynical and unjustfied “land grab”, I suspect to
justify the requirement of a certain percentage of the obligatory “green space” in a building plan which is
over densely populated with houses – up 30% from 1000 to 1,300 (more than double of the entire housing
currently in the village of Tangmere.) This piece of land (half the meadow) is not needed for building.
Please see two plans and photos of the access and meadow (to the west).