Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - PR (26th Jan 2015 - 21:04:33) Sadly Lowsley Farm planning application has been refused this evening. If we are to stop the Bohunt Manor development we must back the owner of the Chiltley Lane Poultry Farm and write in and support his appeal against the refusal of his site. If we can do this we could succeed because our Parish Council is behind us. The poultry farm is a brown field site and will win at appeal. We intend producing a circular for the village very shortly but please write in to EHDC and the Parish Council expressing your support for Chiltley Lane as the best site to provide housing for Liphook.

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - Kevin (26th Jan 2015 - 23:15:46) Wow, putting the cat among the chickens(!), has the applicant (Bloor Homes, not MacKenzie) appealed the refusal by the planning authority. It would be the quickest appeal in history if they have. Not a small job to appeal against the raft of reasons that the LPA had to list in their refusal. Enough of that already, moving on... It seems to me that we should leave the developers to promote their own sites, and as a village should be united in highlighting the many reasons why, particularly with the already consented new homes that remain to be built, Liphook does not need or want the new homes. Yes there are benefits to some schemes that don't attach to others, but the underlying issue is that the village infrastructure cannot cope. We will all suffer in the long run. Can we see the bigger picture, open your eyes and just imagine how busy the square will be with Taylor Wimpey, Silent Garden, Loseley 1, plus all of the windfall sites complete in the next couple of years. Object if you want to object, support if you must, but at the end of the day it is the statutory consultees and professionals that will decide. Put the wedges away and stop trying to split the village.

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - John r (27th Jan 2015 - 06:05:51) I thought that Loseley Farm had been given the go ahead some time back? Bohunt will be decided by the SDNP; no amount of cajoling of EHDC or anyone else for that matter will change that.

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - dave mc grath (27th Jan 2015 - 06:23:52) So what makes the bohunt development any worse than the other building applications? This posting sounds like a nimby opinion, obviously this contributer doesn't live on the berg estate! Please note that i have posted my name, why cant others do the same and have the power of their convictions?PS I dont live on the berg estate.For the record, i think liphook is overdeveloped anyway.There just is not the correct infrastructure to support all of these proposed developments. .

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - Z Smith (27th Jan 2015 - 07:26:26) Unbelievable...... The chicken farm application didn't even go to committee, that was because the application for development was so unsuitable for so many reasons. I agree with Kevin, stop trying to cause divisions within the village. Each application is decided on its on merit and the chicken farm was refused for many many reasons. If you put a flyer through my door, it will go straight in the bin. As with many others I assume, as there was such a wealth of feeling against the chicken farm development. Let the developers sort out their own "developments". I don't want any more development in this village either but stop trying to push the problem around.

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - Jaybee (27th Jan 2015 - 09:47:59) PR Who are the "we" that are producing the circular? What is your vested interest?

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - Diane (27th Jan 2015 - 09:59:47) Just as a matter of interest, from a reliable source it was stated that the SDNP think and have been told, that the majority of the population of Liphook wish to have the houses built on the Bohunt land.

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - Mr John Robson (27th Jan 2015 - 10:58:26) What a load of rubbish is being proposed by this contributor who must have been living with their head under the sand for the past five years or more. Since the Government imposed housing quotas across the country, our hard working, professional County and District councillors have been almost overwhelmed in dealing with the flood of speculative proposals from developers whose sole purpose appears to be to maximise their profit with little benefit to the community other than the supply of basic accommodation of little architectural merit. During the past two years the planning authority have made great efforts to listen to the residents of Liphook to develop proposals for the future growth of the village with their joint core strategies and their LIPS consultation process. These show a clear indication that the vast majority of the village prefer the Bohunt Manor site. This will have the least impact on the inevitable increase in traffic which will result from the increase in housing we must accept. This is the only site offering much needed community facilities. The design has been developed with great care in conjunction with the Princes Foundation Trust and will be a credit to the village for our future generations. EHDC's rejection of the Lowsley Farm extension of the extra 175 houses over the permitted development of 150 already given, together with their rejection of the Chiltley Farm application was based on sound planning reasons for these refusals. Any further support for these, even assuming the developers will appeal, will have little effect on the outcome. Support for the Bohunt manor scheme outweighs the objections by three to one. When did anyone ever see a plan to build 140 houses near the centre of a village receive some 100 letters of support from the local community? Get real and support the Bohunt Manor application for the future of our Village.

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - A. Ryan (27th Jan 2015 - 11:24:57) A quote from PR If we are to stop the Bohunt Manor development we must back the owner of the Chiltley Lane Poultry Farm and write in and support his appeal against the refusal of his site. If we can do this we could succeed because our Parish Council is behind us. This is unbelievable ! The Parish Council are behind you ! I really think you have put your foot in your mouth with this statement. It is the people of Liphook who should have the say, NOT what the council wants! No one wants the Chiltlee Development. This land is prone to flooding from both North and South side, and is most unsuitable. If you speak to local residents most would prefer the Bohunt site. Just look at the the development on the old hospital site, everyone has to drive in from there. If we have to have more houses at least make them part of the village and not on the outskirts. I agree, who are you, are you part of the Council? As for all these leaflets being put round, who is paying for them? I do hope not the taxpayer, and why should we be forced to take this junk mail anyway? More to the point if the Parish Council are behind you then that is worrying as they will fight for what they want and not what the village wants.

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - liz (27th Jan 2015 - 12:35:57) Mr John Robson It seems you are just as capable of talking a load of guff as everyone else. There is absolutely no significant evidence that the people of Liphook prefer the Bohunt site for development. You are also wrong to suggest that the developers are providing facilities. They are not - just land. If money can't be found to develop these facilities it will revert to housing no doubt. Many people seem to believe these funds can be produced out of thin air or that the developer is paying. I'm sure most people (if asked) would prefer the development of a brownfield site than a massive encroachment on our new National Park. As for traffic, there is once again no evidence that the Bohunt site would be the best solution. Ironically it could be even worse if the proposed 'facilities' were actually developed. Imagine trying to get through the Square on a Saturday!! For the record, I am not directly affected by any of the proposed development sites.

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - stacey (27th Jan 2015 - 12:46:01) I understand that the SDNP have the say on whether they think the Park should be built on. It matters not one jot what was said about it in the context of another application. Housing estates do not get decided that way. The Lowesly Farm original permission was for 155 houses they can still build those. If the members of EHDC do not have valid planning reasons to refuse the 330 application at Lowesly, it will go to appeal. The National Park has not been given any housing numbers for Liphook. The Park would only sanction them if it benefits the Park, do houses on Bohunt benefit the the National Park? or just the Berg estate residents, because they think the Chicken farm will be refused that way?

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - PR (27th Jan 2015 - 13:05:15) Well done Liz, at last someone speaking common sense and speaking for the silent majority in Liphook. There is no evidence that Bohunt Manor has majority support from the community and we should all back our parish councillors who have worked hard to get the best for the village. The offer of the so-called facilities on the Bohunt Manor land needs to be investigated as there is a general disbelief that they will see this through and that it is just a means of getting yet more housing at a later date. The fact is the Poultry Farm is a brown field site and should be developed before any other land is built on and I urge everyone to support the owner when it is taken to the Secretary of State for an appeal against the EHDC refusal.

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - tony (27th Jan 2015 - 13:24:31) Clearly we don't want any of them, but it's up to the government and they don't really care. They seem to have earmarked Liphook for development one way or another and the sharks will keep circling, picking us off one field at a time. Can we at least have some proper town planning for this new town? How about bigger roads, a bypass, bigger car parks, a leisure centre, cinema, pedestrianised shopping mall with all your favourite chain stores, maybe a couple of tower blocks as you drive in, just like every other town in England!

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - LM (28th Jan 2015 - 18:49:44) You are so right Tony. Aside from the nightmare that rush hour already brings when you need to get from one side of the village to the other.... what about the kids & jobs? Houses keep being built bringing more people to the village yet there is nowhere for kids/teens to go and we are letting all these hundreds of new residents drive (causing more gridlock) to other towns to shop/meet friends and enjoy leisure facilities! ! Do we need to reach city status before some buffoon wakes up to the fact that if we had a properly thought out town we would have shops and leisure facilities and liphook people could work in them which would cause less traffic AND money could stay in the village. I know daft ideas eh!!!!!

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - stacey (28th Jan 2015 - 20:58:54) I do not know why Mr Robson thinks that the stickers which were attached at fhe Lips presentation represent that the majority in Liphook want to build houses in the SDNPA. I Some of the poeple at the exhibititon who voted were not residents, and I watched horrified as people bought in their own packets of stickers from sainsburys to skew the results. As to the statement the SDNPA have been told this as well, the officer I spoke to from the SDNPA at the time was well aware of all the hyperbole surrounding the Bohunt Manor site, after all it has been kicking around for 8 years without getting permission, why should it be any different now just because the Residents of the Berg think that if they support Bohunt Houses the Chicken farm will not get built on? it is going to be decided on a diferrent set of criteria, and the National Park Planning Policies. We have another few years to find space for 175 houses it does not have to be all decided at once! The Lowesly Fam application will go to appeal and the inspector will not want to know about stickers! The applicant is not offerering Any facilities just land.

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - chris (28th Jan 2015 - 22:36:05) Mr John Robson states "some 100 letters of support from the local community" for the Bohunt Park application. On the face of it that may be the case but if you look behind the numbers why suddenly do we have so much support for this project from residents of Alton, Farnham, Alresford, Storrington, Fernhust , Grayshott etc etc etc. What has it got to do with them! In my view no further major developments should be approved in Liphook until a comprehensive plan to deal with the traffic ,sewage and power supply issues has been put in place. Otherwise we will be swamped by two of these and be short of the third!

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - GM (29th Jan 2015 - 10:39:03) Just picking up on this thread and comments of the OP. Am I missing something here because the report from the council planning offices says RECOMMENDATION That: The Solicitor to the Council be authorised to draw up a legal obligation to secure the following: a) Affordable housing provision and its allocation in accordance with JCS Policy CP14 and supplementary planning guidance on the implementation of the policy for affordable housing, including appropriate provision within each phase of development; i) a contribution of £884,975 towards primary school provision; ii) the provision of transport improvements (to Longmoor Road); iii) improvements to The Square in Liphook centre; iv) transport contribution to cover the costs and production and implementation of a Travel Plan; v) the provision of up 12 allotments within the site; vi) the provision of a SANG, before first occupation, and its management arrangements in perpetuity; and vii) the management and maintenance of any other public open space on site, including the surface water drainage system b) provided that all parties enter into the agreement to secure the above obligations by 23 March 2015, then the Interim Service Manager Planning Development be authorised to grant OUTLINE PERMISSION That doesn't read as a refusal to me, am I missing something?? Also a supplementary report was issued on the 26th January, the date the application was supposed to be refused.

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - ellie (29th Jan 2015 - 12:35:23) Hi there previous poster, what you are reading is the officer's recommendation to the planning committee. They read through that and sometimes the application does not go to committee for a vote, unless our district councillors ask for it to go to committee for a vote. Sometimes the application is decided by the planning officers. As this was for 330 houses it is not surprising it went to a vote! I expect the developer will appeal this descision, they usually do, and this site was in the draft local plan as the preffered site to take the extra 175 houses. 150 houses on the site gained permission about 2 years ago, but none have been built yet.

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - steve miller (29th Jan 2015 - 13:45:12) I think that GM is referring to the EHDC planning officers report which did indeed recommend that the planning committee should grant outline approval. The committee however was not pursuaded and decided to refuse the application by a majority of 4 against 3. Presumably the website will be updated with the outcome in due course.

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - GM (2nd Feb 2015 - 11:43:54) Hi Steve, thanks for clarifying that, indeed you were correct with my point. Well, I guess it's a case of wait and see again. These things are rarely sorted out with the first refusal!

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - PR (2nd Feb 2015 - 20:23:41) We have now heard from a contact that Bloor Homes are likely to be submitting an appeal and we intend circulating a petition in support of their appeal has soon as the appeal papers have been lodged. We will also open a dedicated website to update the whole community. Remember that East Hants did not allow this application to go through the proper democratic process of a committee vote, despite our democratically elected parish council support for this application as the only suitable housing development in Liphook. This is a brownfield site which has the support of our parish council and is the best location for new houses in the village as it would not be on greenfield land or in the Park and is secluded and would have minimum impact on neighbouring properties. None of us wish to have further housing built in the village, but this is the best location with the least immediate impact and has the support of the elected local parish council which was voted join to reflect the wishes of the community.

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - TWWOTN (2nd Feb 2015 - 22:43:35) PR you have still not answered a previous question ; who are you and what is your vested interest? It strikes me that by avoiding this question you either stand to make some personal gain from this development, you have a connection with the Parish Council or you are a NIMBY.

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - Peter R (2nd Feb 2015 - 22:55:57) PR When I first read your post I thought it was some sort of joke but it obviously isn't. The parish councillors may be democratically elected but in this ie the Chiltley Lane planning application they are not representing the wishes of the electorate. People do not want the Chiltley Lane Site built on mainly because of its location and accesses. I am not going to elaborate on this because it is obvious and it has been discussed before on this forum and for the record I do not live anywhere near Chitlley Lane or on the Berg. It is my understanding that applications are decided by delegated powers if there are not enough objections from local people and there are good planning reasons why a development should not take place. If there are sufficient objections, the local member is consulted on whether the application should be brought to committee. So I sugggest you read the reasons for refusal.

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - Dawn Hoskins (3rd Feb 2015 - 11:19:25) Time and again, I have heard that ‘The Parish Council’ ‘want’ or are ‘in favour’ this site. That is complete nonsense spoken by people who simply do not understand the planning constraints that councillors must work under. In areas which are inside an area of sustainable development (Liphook) there is an automatic presumption to build. This is not something that is dreamed up by Parish Councillors, but a policy from Central Government. The presumption to build is rebuttable only if certain (but few) objections can be matched to the application. If there is no matching objection that can be made to stick – then the Parish council have no choice. They are entirely hamstrung by policy. They can’t object for the sake of objecting. It would be great if there was a box to tick on the objections list that said: Liphook is full; Liphook does not have the infrastructure to cope……etc. It doesn't, it can’t and it won’t. You may not like, or understand these provisions, but to put in simple terms, if the answer is yes (to the questions listed below) -you can’t object. All the Parish Council has the power to do is place ‘Conditions’ on the application to cover the concerns that have. Which they did do. The Conditions placed are that ‘developer contributions’ must pay for the required improvements to the Midhurst Road railway bridge and the safety issues thereon; that ‘Public Open Space’ must be provided in the form of allotments; that the developer remove all the Japanese Knotweed; that the developer must try to provide additional on-site parking spaces. I have looked with great interest at this as it has rolled on with ill-informed allegations being made against the Parish Council that they are not acting in the Parishioners best interests etc – but – please at least try to understand what the rules are before you complain that they have been broken. If you are dealt a hand full of bad cards all you can do is play the best you have – even though it is still a low scorer! We, as parish, and whether we like it or not are going to have hundreds of homes thrust upon us, because central government said so (Not because our Parish Councillors are doing a bad job). So all the Parish can do is look at all the cards in the rubbish hand they have been dealt by the various developers and decide which is the least bad. Is this an area of sustainable settlement? Yes Does the site have adequate access? Yes Does the application provide adequate car parking provision. Yes Have Hampshire County council approved road access? Yes Is the site outside of a registered flood zone? Yes Does the number of affordable homes match the number of private residences? Yes Is the application accord with current housing allocation needs? Yes Is the application high, medium or low density compared to surrounding areas? Low Does the application accord with the National Planning Framework guidelines? Yes Can the Parish Council object to this proposal under the planning rules..........No What can you do about it? Write to your member of Parliament, write to head of EHDC, attend planning meetings at Penns Place. You can campaign against the rules, but slagging off the Parish Council is wrong, misguided, unwarranted and just plain silly. It's like shooting the messenger because you don't like the message! Learn what the rules are - then protest to the rule makers.

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - Kevin Jackson (3rd Feb 2015 - 17:04:11) Dawn, nowhere in Peter R's post can I see any reference to "The Parish Council want" or "are in favour of". He does say that the parish councillors by raising no objection subject to certain criteria being met in the case of this planning application, did not represent the wishes of the vast majority of its electorate. We all know and do not need to be constantly reminded that parish councils can only comment on applications, but their comments, if sensible and in accordance with planning guidelines, are taken into consideration, so you don't need to keep repeating this. There are 186 objection to this application registered on EHDC's web site, so I think these objectors can fairly say that their wishes and views have not been taken into account. The application was refused by East Hants because: "The Planning Authority REFUSES Planning Permission for the following reason(s): 1 The application fails to adequately demonstrate that the development proposal will not have a severe detrimental impact upon the operation and safety of the local road network and is, therefore, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CP31 of JCS and Policy T7 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review. 2 In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposal involves a development that cannot be reconciled with the National Planning Policy Framework in that it would result in the users of the development being unable to make use of sustainable transport opportunities. This would result in a greater number of trips by private car which will create a severe impact on the local transportnetwork, especially the mph adjacent the Berg estate, and environment contrary to the NPPF and Policy CP31 of the JCS." The following is an excerpt from B&LP Planning Meeting held on 14 July, 2014. "80/13.2 Residential development comprising 100 dwellings & Bloor Homes Cllrs Mrs J Kirby associated public open space, following change of use of (Southern) /Mrs B Easton land & demolition of existing buildings - Poultry Farm, Chiltley Lane, Liphook Cllr Mrs Easton proposed that the Parish Council should raise no objections to the application, subject to conditions covering concerns about traffic movements in Midhurst Rd, open space provision, eradication of the Japanese knotweed & restriction of on-street parking. A vote was taken (five in favour; two objections). Decision: No objections subject to: 1. developer contributions provided to support improvements to Midhurst Rd, in particular to railway bridge & pedestrian safety; 2. public open space in the form of allotments; 3. removal of Japanese Knotweed from site; 4. consideration given to additional on-site parking spaces to alleviate need for on-street parking in Berg Estate." Dawn, that is what people are disenfranchised about. They know the parish council have no real power, but that they do have the power of constructive comment which is taken into account by EHDC and that seems to be sadly lacking by the council in this instance as they have clearly not addressed the core issues and valid concerns of electors.

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - Dawn Hoskins (3rd Feb 2015 - 17:48:06) Kevin it is the big highlighted yellow box that speaks of the Parish Council - not the O.P.

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - Dawn Hoskins (3rd Feb 2015 - 17:58:03) Kevin, that is what I am saying - the core issues and valid concerns are not in the boxes for ticking the box for objection. That does not mean they are not valid worries it just means that the Parish Council cannot OBJECT based on too many cars, traffic jams in the square, not enough schools, not enough dentists, etc etc. They are worries held by all of us, but they cannot be addressed by the local planning laws at Parish level - you have to go higher to address these issues. To the nameless and faceless people who make decisions on your behalf at district and county level (have you been there? do you know who they are?). It is easy to sling mud at the one place that actually invites you in every week - but the mud is landing on the wrong people. The parish councillors are not the decision makers and must follow the rules to allow the decision makers to make their choice. We are lucky that Ferris Cowper has stated quite clearly that he thinks Liphook is full, but that will not stop the appeal decision if any council beit parish, district, county etc has made an irrelevant objection not based on the rules set down by government. Support your parish council by knowing what the rules are, then you will see that they are doing everything they can.

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - Darren Ellis (3rd Feb 2015 - 20:10:44) Although I understand and appreciate the comments from retired (I believe) BLPC member Dawn Hoskins I must disagree with her posting regarding whether BLPC were able to make a comment Objecting to the Chiltley Lane application, exactly the way they posted a comment of Objection to the Lowsley Farm application and, if I was a betting man, I suspect they will do for the Bohunt Manor application. Dawn comments: Is this an area of sustainable settlement? Yes (EHDC refused the application because it isn't a sustainable development). Does the site have adequate access? Yes (EHDC refused the application because of concerns over the access through the existing development). Does the application provide adequate car parking provision. Yes (EHDC refused the application because of inadequate off street parking and garages being too small). Have Hampshire County council approved road access? Yes Is the site outside of a registered flood zone? Yes Does the number of affordable homes match the number of private residences? Yes Is the application accord with current housing allocation needs? Yes Is the application high, medium or low density compared to surrounding areas? Low (EHDC refused the application because the development was out of keeping and a higher density to adjacent properties). Does the application accord with the National Planning Framework guidelines? Yes (EHDC refused the application because it is contrary to NPPF on numerous points as well as the JCS). Can the Parish Council object to this proposal under the planning rules..........No (obviously this was a YES ..... see above). So 5 out of her 9 points were suitable for objecting to the application, in exactly the same way EHDC refused the application. From attending many of the recent BLPC planning meetings my overall impression is that some (not all) of the members are rather uninformed about planning rules, do not fully scrutinise all applications and seem to only want to vote on a purely personal agenda, with no thought to the overall opinion and views of the parishioners or relevant planning rules. I wait to be shouted down and personally attacked but I have a big enough chin to take it. (I'm also big enough to use my full name and stand by my comments too, exactly the way Dawn has, I applaud her for that and feel others should do the same).

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - Dawn Hoskins (4th Feb 2015 - 12:15:54) The question of whether Liphook and surrounds is an area of sustainable settlement is a very different kettle of fish than asking if this particular design is, individually, a sustainable development. The Parish council can only go on the Highways information re: access – and according to that – it had adequate access. Same with the guidelines on minimum off-street parking – is it within the guidelines – yes. Same with density rules. They are set out by calculation and this constitutes low density. Compared to The Berg which is so low density it requires a special exemption anything would look high density – but those are just the rules. When the Parish Council stick to the rules, and remember theirs is only a voice that should be listened to – but not acted upon, then it gets passed up to decision makers at EHDC. It doesn't mean that the parish council are personally motivated – it means they have rules and follow them. The developer will be able to appeal very easily now as the minimum guidelines set down by central government are really quite clear on all of the above points – with the exception of the developers contributions of which- of which the rules have all changed in the last year. If anyone is worried about whether the parish council are misunderstanding the planning guidelines, you can ask for a copy so you can read them yourself. It is good to know the rules of the game – the developers do! p.s. nice to have a conversation without nastiness.

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - PR (4th Feb 2015 - 13:53:34) I am afraid it still comes back to brownfield versus greenfield and our view is that this development will not concrete over agricultural land, removing it as a national asset forever, but will place housing in a discreet location where it will quickly be assimilated into the surrounding landscape through the implementation of planned tree planting and landscape works. As mentioned, this scheme was supported by our democratically elected representatives and was prematurely rejected by EHDC planning officer without allowing a democratic committee vote. We intend lobbying the relevant authorities when the appeal is lodged for and will make legal representation at that time. Local people who are concerned about how Liphook is developed will have an opportunity to make their views known via our website shortly to be set up and will be encouraged to make separate representations once the appeal is lodged.

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - Kevin Jackson (4th Feb 2015 - 16:11:06) Sorry Dawn, but I do not understand what you mean by "it is the big highlighted yellow box that speaks of the Parish Council - not the O.P." You keep repeating that the parish councillors are not the decision makers – we know that and we all know that they can only comment - and the comments that the PC made about this proposal were what people were unhappy about. Luckily EHDC made the right decision and refused this application for all the reasons given heretofore. The reasons against the development are so glaringly obvious that it did not even come to committee. Read the reasons for refusal and you will understand why it was refused. PR You obviously have not read the reasons for refusal. If you had you would have seen that an appeal is not likely to succeed. I think you will find that there are far more people who don't want the Chiltley Lane Site developed than do - and it won't be just people who live on The Berg.

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - PR (4th Feb 2015 - 16:54:46) Kevin We have independent advice from a Chartered Planner who puts the chances of success of an appeal at in excess of 50%. In this current climate of central government pushing for more housing and no other possible place for the houses to go in Liphook, such as Lark Rise or Bohunt Manor, there are still 175 houses to be built in Liphook and Chiltley Lane is the best location. The Parish Council got it right and we believe that the Planning Inspector will sign it through, and that will be in the best interest of Liphook as it will avoid urban sprawl. Sorry, but I do not agree with you and we should await the appeal.

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - Darren Ellis (4th Feb 2015 - 16:58:53) PR ..........who ever you are, it would be very nice to know your full name, not sure why you're being so shy and evasive. I'm afraid you are wrong when you say that the Chiltley Farm proposals are to develop a "Brownfield Site". Chiltley Farm is also agricultural land with a working farm producing chickens. It is a not brownfield and never has been. The buildings on the site are actually quite new and both sheds in full production. The Chiltley Farm site is actually no different to the Lowsley Farm site (both are agricultural land producing crops/animals) and the Bohunt Manor site is exactly the same although no crops have been harvested from that land for a few years. Any of the three proposals on the table at the moment would mean the loss of agricultural land and in the case of Chiltley Farm it would mean the loss of a number of jobs too. The overriding concerns are not greenfield verses brownfield they are sustainability, access and traffic congestion. As far as I'm aware no appeals have yet to be posted for Chiltley Farm or Lowsley Farm, although I imagine they will be on the cards. I'm intrigued with your comments saying that an appeal for Chiltley Farm has been lodged and "We" will be launching a website to promote the site (why didn't you do that when EHDC were considering it?). The only way you might know this is that you are possibly either Bloor Homes or Mr McKenzie? We'll never know unless you tell us. (or are you part of SOS Bohunt???)

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - A. Ryan (4th Feb 2015 - 17:37:57) Well said Darren Ellis. This is beginning to really stink. PR, who are you? It appears you are no friend to Liphook. As residents we know where we want and don't want these developments, and know the reasons why. I am intrigued, do you live here? I would say not as you do not seem to understand how this development could be detrimental to Liphook. It was turned down for very good reasons.

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - PR (4th Feb 2015 - 17:43:29) Darren The reason we had not set up a website is because we fully expected the planning application to go to committee Apart from the logic of this site, already explained, we object to the way in which it was struck off without going to committee. Our advise suggests that it stands a good chance of winning at appeal.

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - Tim H (4th Feb 2015 - 18:31:58) PR - Have you recently moved to the area? It’s as if the debates surrounding Chitley and Bohunt over the last couple of years have completely passed you by. As Darren suggests, you’ve obviously got a vested interest in Bohunt given the propaganda campaign you seem to be waging but you’re coming to the party slightly too late I’m afraid. The fact is EHDC were overwhelmed by opposition to the Chitley development for a very good reason – it would have been a disaster for the village on a number of levels and a large body of local residents understood that and made their views on the matter clear to EHDC.

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - PR (4th Feb 2015 - 19:50:12) Tim You haven't read my entries properly. I thought we made it clear where development should most appropriately go. Thanks

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - S (4th Feb 2015 - 21:36:51) PR - Who are 'WE' that you keep referring to? You say you have 'made clear what is best' No, you have made clear what YOU THINK is best: as is evident from this thread, many people think otherwise... Nothing you say holds any weight unless you reveal your identity and interest.

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - Kevin Jackson (5th Feb 2015 - 14:25:16) PR I also would like to know who this "we" is. So far I have not spoken to anyone who is in favour of the Chiltley Lane Chicken Farm development, nor have I seen any posts on this site from people who are in favour, other than yours of course. The Parish Councillors' comments were that they had no objection to the development provided that certain criteria were met (See the minutes of the B&LPC held on 14 July 2014). I and many others felt that these comments did not reflect the wishes of the majority of the electorate. It is true the site could be classed as an agricultural brownfield site but that is not the only criteria for granting development. There are many other issues equally as important such as access, highways, National Planning Policy Framework, Settlement Policy Guidelines etc, etc. The reason why the Chiltley Lane Chicken Farm application did not come to committee at EHDC was because there were overwhelming planning reasons why this development should not take place - see EHDC's web site under View and Comment on Planning Applications number 22789/006. I am sure that the local District Councillors would have been consulted at some point beforehand as to whether or not it should come to committee. Lastly please stop muddying the waters with the Bohunt Manor Frontage Land. This land is in the SDNP and nothing to do with EHDC. Whatever happens at Bohunt Manor will have no impact on the number of houses that Liphook, outside the SDNP, will have to accommodate ie at this moment in time, another 175.

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - jaybee (5th Feb 2015 - 19:59:19) PR Myself and a number of other interest parties have asked that you to identify the "we" in your postings and your vested interest, so far we have heard nothing. This leads me to believe that you are a spokesperson for the McKenzie brothers or Bloor Homes. Which?

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - jeanne (6th Feb 2015 - 15:18:46) I cannot understand why anyone should be against development on the Bohunt Manor estate. There is already a business operating from there who presumably obtaining permission for change of use from a private dwelling to business. In my opinion this is without doubt the best location for development, being close to the railway station, bus terminal and shops, thereby easing traffic problems in Midhurst Road and the railway bridge. We do not have access to this small portion of the SDNP apart from once a year I believe when a fund raising charity event takes place. We need to ascertain how many people already live on the estate & how many lives would be disrupted.

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - sjenner (7th Feb 2015 - 04:33:41) There are public footpaths and bridleways around the frontage land maps.hants.gov.uk Key your post code and then reposition the map. You will see that there definitely is access - go explore!

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - PR (7th Feb 2015 - 09:09:12) Look what has just happened in Devils Lane Anything is possible at this time

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - Peter Richardson (7th Feb 2015 - 09:57:09) What on earth has Devil's Lane got to do with this Thread. Stop fudging and muddying the waters. You do appear to have a vested interest in supporting the Chitlley Lane Chicken Farm application.

Re: Lowsley Farm Refused Chiltley Lane appeal - Ian (7th Feb 2015 - 13:10:42) So PR, can we assume by your lack of response to the repeated question who is \"we\" that actually there is no \"we\" other than your presumption your views represent the majority of Liphook, which I can assure you they don\'t!

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home