Agenda item

TG/20/02893/OUT Land Adjacent To A27 Copse Farm, Tangmere Road, Tangmere, West Sussex

Outline planning application for a residential-led mixed use development comprising up to 1,300 dwellings (Use Class C3), an expanded village centre (comprising flexible units suited to Use Class E and pubs or drinking establishments and/or takeaways in Use Class Sui Generis), community uses, primary school, informal and formal open space, playing pitches, footpaths, cycleways, associated landscaping, utilities and drainage infrastructure, including on-site pumping station(s) with connection to the Strategic Foul network; associated infrastructure and groundworks; with all matters reserved except for the principal access junctions from the A27 grade-separated junction and Tangmere Road and the secondary access at Malcolm Road.





Mr Bleakley presented the item to Members and provided a verbal update, confirming a minor amendment to the application relating to of a small area of land to the west of Saxon Meadows has been excluded from the application.


Information provided in the Agenda Update Sheet:


  • Further response from Natural England confirming agreement with the Council’s Habitats Regulations Assessment.


  • Additional representations from Boxgrove Parish Council, regarding the lack of detail in relation to the off-site junction mitigation measures and the proposals for monitoring traffic movements.  The requirement to maintain bus service route 55 serving Boxgrove and Halnaker.  That the Construction Management Plan prohibits construction traffic from using The Street, Boxgrove.  A requirement to further develop safe walking and cycling routes connecting Tangmere and South Downs National Park. 


  • Representations from Lavant Parish Council regarding the issues related to additional traffic on minor roads.


  • Further information from the applicant providing agreement to fund two cycle improvement studies, relating to the possible widening of the Temple Bar bridge footpath and potential improvements for the existing Westhampnett cycle route, in addition to the £630,000 contribution currently offered. 


  • Amendment to paragraph 8.59 within the report, deleting ‘up to’ in the first sentence, to read ‘Policy 18 allocates the site for 1,000 new dwellings, but emerging Policy AL14 recognises the potential of the site to satisfactorily accommodate a higher number of dwellings and consequently proposes a minimum of 1,300 dwellings on the site’.


  • Additions to the Heads of Terms for a Section 106 Agreement in paragraph 8.214 regarding ‘Community Buildings’, ‘Public Transport’, ‘Direct Highways Works’, and ‘Off-site Highway works and contributions’.


  • Changes to recommended conditions including, Condition 4 (Design Code), Condition 11 (CEMP) and updates to Condition 35 and 38.


The Committee received the following Speakers:


Andrew Irwin – Tangmere Parish Council

Philip Maber – Objector

Ian Sumnall – Supporter

Ellen Timmins – Agent

Russell Henderson – Agent


Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions:


Mr Bleakley confirmed that in relation to the A27 Temple Bar junction, the costs of providing the pedestrian and cycle crossing would be not be taken from the £630,000 contribution, which was allocated to cycleway improvements.  With regards to the north-east corner of the site and connectivity of the cycleway to the existing network, as the connection was shown on the Parameter Plan which was conditioned, its delivery should be ensured and would be further considered at the reserved matters stage.  Mr Bleakley advised that officers do not currently have details regarding access to the allotments or the car park for the allotments, although these could be sought and a condition added, although he did not consider this to be necessary.  On the matter of planting or building within three metres of water courses, Mr Bleakley advised that a condition recommended this, but was aware the Parameter Plan appeared to show this as closer than three metres.  Mr Bleakley confirmed that the condition would be the over-riding factor.  The requirement for keeping land to the west of Mannock Road open and whether a condition was required, would also be considered at the reserved matters stage.  Mr Gledhill advised that the footway width on the south-east corner of Tangmere Road was adequate, and could not be increased as this would result in the necessity to narrow the carriageway. On the matter of the crossing at Malcolm Road the applicant had agreed to a condition for this installation.


Mr Bleakley confirmed that planting next to watercourses might be possible and it was important not to be overly prescriptive regarding the Parameter Plan in terms of measurements. They were intended to provide a picture of the development, and further detail would be brought forward at the reserved matters stage. However, further conditions could be added, should the Committee wish to do so.  Mr Gledhill confirmed he had not received any other information regarding crossings within the vicinity of Malcolm Road. With regards to the desire line south of Gamecock Terrace, in the south-east corner, of the south-east corner parcel, Mr Gledhill confirmed that there was sufficient flexibility within the condition for the south-east corner access  to be moved to accommodate the desire line and the details of which could be further examined once submitted.


On the matter of housing delivery, Mr Bleakley advised that the development consisted of up to 1,300 homes, which would be constructed over a ten to twelve year period, with an average of around 145 homes constructed each year.  Realistically, these could probably not be delivered at a higher rate as houses had to be marketed and sold.  At the present time, the site was not making a contribution to housing land supply, because the expectation was that completions would not be achieved until after current five year supply period had ended.  However, if this application was to be approved, development should commence next year, with first occupations later in 2023. Therefore, some completions would be achieved within the relevant period which would assist the Council’s position and the site would continue to make a contribution over a significant period of time.  Mr Whitty added that although delivery was important, it was not material for the determination of the application.


With regards to the spine road, Mr Bleakley confirmed that the detail at either end, which was the access onto the A27 at the north and the Tangmere Road to the south was part of the application, but that the other detail within the site was only indicative at this stage of the process.  On the matter of concerns in relation to an increase in traffic off-site, Mr Bleakley advised that within the proposed legal agreement there were a variety of measures proposed, including direct highway improvements and the monitoring of off-site traffic to help inform further actions that might be required, Consequently, a commitment to the full details was not being made at the current time.  Mr Gledhill further advised that the only matter the Committee could not approve was a Traffic Regulation Order for a 40mph speed limit on the Tangmere, as that would be subject to a separate legal process.


Mr Bleakley confirmed that land to the west of Malcolm Road (as referred to within the Tangmere Neighbourhood Plan Policy) actually lies to the south of the proposed village centre and also outside the application site.  It had been a long-standing aspiration of Tangmere Parish Council for this land to be developed.  The land was partially owned by the District Council and partially owned by a housing association. Discussions were on-going regarding this area and decisions would be made in the future.  


With regards to the current Local Plan revision, due to the likely length of time for the build out of the site and which might require a higher level of affordable housing, Mr Bleakley confirmed that it would follow appropriate policy that applied at that time, with the two relevant matters being the Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan.  The current mix of housing was in accordance with the approved Tangmere Neighbourhood Plan and there was no scope for this to be changed at a later date.  Mr Whitty also confirmed that the housing mix would be established in line with current policy and therefore would be 30%.


With regards to sustainability, Mr Bleakley advised that a study setting-out the approach had been submitted.  Mr Bleakley drew Members’ attention to a condition which outlined the sustainability measures required for each phase, as they were likely to alter over the period of the development and it would be important to ensure changes were taken into account.  On the matter of increasing the widths of the footpaths at the Temple Bar junction, Mr Bleakley confirmed that the applicant had agreed to fund a study in advance of decisions being made regarding the best option for the future cycle link to Chichester.  On the matter of existing cycle routes, Mr Bleakley responded that he was aware of the options and that this was the reason for recommending that a decision was not taken at the current time.  The delivery of the alternative route along the side of the A27 could not be guaranteed and, therefore, it would not be apposite to agree this as the most appropriate or correct option, at this time.  Mr Bleakley advised that agreement should be given to accept the contribution offered by the applicant and a further decision made quickly to help inform the best way forward.  On the matter of the speed of the spine road and Malcolm Road, Mr Bleakley explained that he did not currently have the detail, but the expectation was of 20mph and 30mph in various locations.  With regards to the occupation of the first 300 houses and whether residents would have access to the cycleway, Mr Bleakley believed this would be the situation. He also drew Members’ attention to Condition 7 which was a recommendation for a phasing plan.  On the matter of the three metre bund to the north of the site, Mr Bleakley advised that he did not consider that would have an adverse impact on the water courses, and that it had been specifically designed not to do so.  On the suggestion of a ‘car club’, Mr Bleakley advised that was a detailed matter which was as yet unknown but reminded Members that there was recommendation for a condition for a Travel Plan to be required.  Mr Bleakley confirmed that it was likely that some of the development would be carried out by house builders, other than the applicant.  With regards to cycleways and the spine road, Mr Bleakley drew Members’ attention to the proposed separate segregated cycle and footpath route proposed within the site from the north to the south which would be a footway and cycleway approximately four metres wide.  Mr Bleakley added that with regards to the aspiration of an increase in cycling from 4% to 7%, there were a number of sustainable proposals for the site which would encourage the option to cycle.


Mr Oakley proposed a number of amendments to conditions and new conditions:


  • A scheme of minor footway improvements were submitted, approved and implemented along the Tangmere Road, from Gamecock Terrace to Meadow Way


  • That Condition 36 was added to, with regards eastwards and northwards cycle connectivity immediately adjacent to the east side of the south east crossing


  • That an additional condition was included for the allotment car park access


  • That the trigger point for Condition 35, the Church Lane footway was amended to include an allotment trigger (if that was first)


  • Amendment to the Parameter Plans with regards to the planting and alignment of the foot/cycleway in the area west of Mannock Road and Campbell Road


Mr Whitty advised that it was not possible to amend Parameter Plans as already submitted, but agreed with Mr Oakley that it was not just the access but also the matter of principle which were being established.  Parameter Plans provided an indication of where roads were likely to be built only.  Mr Whitty suggested that with regards to Mr Oakley’s final proposed amendment, that it was made clear through an informative that it was expected that the landscaping would extend further and that the segregated cycle access was aligned appropriately.  Mr Whitty further added that it could be stated ‘Notwithstanding the Parameter Plans’ in relation to these matters.


With regards to reducing the timing for the future implementation of cycling infrastructure, Mr Bleakley confirmed he had recommended what he believed would be achievable but that it may be possible for this to be shorter than five to ten years.  Mr Bleakley suggested that as this would form part of the Section 106 agreement, it would be further considered and the outcome could be reported to Mr Oakley and Mrs Sharp.


Mr Whitty responded that on the matter of Highways England being satisfied with the scheme, Mr Bleakley could ensure local Members were updated.


In a vote Members agreed the application.


Recommendation to Permit agreed, subject to Highways England withdrawing its holding objection following an agreed approach to the access proposals for the A27 Temple Bar junction, defer for section 106, based on the general Heads of Terms set out in section 8 of this report.


Members took a ten minute break.


Supporting documents: