Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

Another View of Liphook Development - Russ & Irene Ellis (28th Feb 2015 - 16:59:07) By now anyone who is interested in Bohunt Manor Development will know exactly what SOS think about it, with their full reports in the Herald, leaflet dropping and on this site. They basically want to save a couple of arable fields which no one will have access to and does nothing for Liphook infrastructure or residents. We all know that whatever we say we are going to have more houses built in and around Liphook whether we like it or not. It’s not just the big developments but all the in filling which is going on as well. Also Bohunt School size increases year on year and they are now considering building a six form collage which will bring more cars and coaches. We desperately need new roads to take away some of the traffic which is ruining our village square which is a CONSERVATION AREA and Liphook residents HERITAGE. The square should be a place we are proud of but it is slowing being destroyed by pollution and heavy traffic. The shops have gradually closed and what was once the heart of Liphook is now more like spaghetti junction. One developer thought so little of it that they suggested altering the square layout and removing some of the flower beds. The only options we have for a part relief road is from Station Road through the arable fields on Bohunt Manor and out on to the Longmoor Road. Bohunt School could then have a new entrance off the link road and make the Longmoor Road entrance pedestrian only. This would make an enormous difference to the traffic in the square at school time. Plus all the people living on the South Side i.e. station side, could access the A3 by pass without going through the square and visa versa. We know this will not solve the whole problem but it would be a good start. The South Downs are beautiful and an English Heritage which can be accessed in many places, and for us allowing this development will not change anything as we will still be able to see the downs but from the open spaces which will be provided for everyone to use and enjoy. Liphook will be growing but in the right direction with more infrastructure. Of course this can only be achieved if we can get the developers, Bohunt Manor, Nothcote Trust and highways to work together. Now I am sure some of you will say that will never happen but it has in other places so why not here. We lost the battle with Sainsbury’s when they closed the link road through to the Haslemere Road and built on it, as they said their survey proved there was not enough traffic to warrant it. That was only less than 20yrs ago So please Parish, District, County Councillors and any future councillors we must plan ahead and look to the next 20yrs and try and get it right for the next generation. Land must be identified NOW for roads before it gets built on. It is to late then. It’s like shutting the door after the horse has bolted. If you love Liphook as much as we do and are proud of our OWN CONSERVATION AREA and OUR HERITAGE THE SQUARE. Start shouting as loud as the SOS and let’s work together to see our village centre come back to life with pedestrians not HEAVY TRAFFIC.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - A. Ryan (28th Feb 2015 - 18:25:46) Russ and Irene. Two voices of reason from people who KNOW the village inside and out. I had the pleasure in hearing you talk at the council meeting.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - Michael Farrant (28th Feb 2015 - 19:51:00) To be honest, the two fields at the end of station road have no amenity value whatsoever. They look awful, any sort of improvement would be a good thing. I could understand arguments if there were a beautiful view of the downs but there isn't, with a casual glance you wouldn't know that it was within a National Park or not. I say redevelop the fields, there won't be any great loss to the National Park and quite possibly a gain to the village.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - Peter Richardson (28th Feb 2015 - 20:14:26) Well said Russ and Irene. When the South Downs National Park boundaries were drawn, it was a huge circle taking in many places which in my opinion should not have been included. For example the whole Petersfield and Liss are included ie towns. To me the South Downs National Park is the rolling open countryside not land close to towns. It must be remembered that Bohunt Manor is now owned and run as a commercial business and even if the frontage land was developed with a road and houses there would still be many acres of Manor left within the SDNP. As Russ and Irene said let us apply some commonsense and look to the long-term future of Liphook.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - tony (28th Feb 2015 - 21:35:57) The Bohunt Manor site (the one left by it's owners to the WWF in perpetuity!) might actually be the least worse way to concrete up this area, although I very much doubt that we'll ever see much of the so called amenities promised. Don't they all require massive external investment to ever go ahead? It's a bit rich to say they are included in the development. And as for the comment from Peter Richardson, it's sounds a bit like you find the South Downs Park a bit of a nuisance, how can you exclude towns and villages and the areas around them from the Park? They are part of it. If you exclude the bits around the towns from protection, then there will always be more 'bits', like an expanding waistline, until we've gobbled up the countryside in our greed for houses.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - sjenner (1st Mar 2015 - 07:29:27) The reason the fields are in the state they are in is that the owners have deliberately allowed the area to degenerate precisely to persuade opinion that anything is better than what we see at present. And there is access, just take a look at the ordinance survey maps of the area. What gain to the village are you talking about? A relief road to the station from the Longmoor road? A Doctors surgery? The surgery was given permission years ago so where is it - WHERE IS IT? The relief road will not resolve traffic issues that emanate to and from the Headley road and to and from the London Road. They built the A3 bypass to take traffic away from Liphook but it didn\'t and we have more traffic now than we ever did. The only way you will ever prevent heavy volumes of traffic through the square is to close the roads that lead to it or start charging a toll. Building at Bohunt, not building at Bohunt it will not change anything - daily traffic counts will be the same or higher! Any of those who vehemently support housing on this land please list in detail what we will get in terms of amenities and who will fund it - especially the FACTS about funding! Come on, you all seem so taken in by the philanthropy of the Bohunt Scheme, you must all be anticipating something - so what is it and who is going to put hand in pocket and pay for it? And has been said time and again, putting houses on Bohunt will NOT stop housing in the other areas of Liphook. We will have all that to contend with AND the extra 175+ at Bohunt. I have lived in Liphook for nearly 30 years and watched it grow from a village to what it is now and likely I will see it become more of an overdeveloped sprawl. The only answer is no more - enough is enough!

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - Michael Farrant (1st Mar 2015 - 09:22:45) Granted there is a footpath but I wouldn't class it as an open space to be enjoyed by members of the general public, it is a private field after all. It would be cool if the residents of Liphook could form a club to purchase the fields and turn it into a park like Radford? That would be an amazing benefit to all :)

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - Peter Richardson (1st Mar 2015 - 19:00:12) No Tony I do not think that the SDNP is a nuisance - I just take issue with the boundaries drawn including areas which I feel are not the South Downs. The South Downs comprises the chalk uplands not all the other areas which have been included.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - Carole (1st Mar 2015 - 22:59:10) Well said Irene and Russell. Of course Liphook will have much more housing wherever it may be but the infrastructure needs to be put in place before future development I.e. roads, sewerage, schools, doctors etc. It's about time the powers that be looked at the overall picture for the long term.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - stacey (1st Mar 2015 - 23:25:30) whether you take issue with the boundary or not it is there to stay. All developements will lead to more traffic, a presentation from the Northcott Estate only promised to build an access road into their development. There was no road mentioned in the Bohunt development. The Bohunt houses would not particularly mean a new road would be built? where are the two ideas connected? A housing application is all it is, there are only houses and a cafe and the live work units , no community facilities, those facilities would be for residents. After all the clue is in the name "bohunt park." It will probably have gates and there are no new footpaths included in the application for the public to visit Bohunt Park. A new estate of houses just means more cars not new roads. Who is going to pay for it? HAmpshire CC are building a new road at Bordon, on the promise of 3thousand new houses. They are not going to build a new road for 100 new houses. I think if someone has promised that for 100 new houss they are not being honest, do you wish to see thousands?

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - Hal (2nd Mar 2015 - 08:29:07) Am I missing something here? On the plans that I received in the post there is no relief road at all, just housing access roads. Why do people keep mentioning relief roads? The developer would lose a lot in housing land if they had to put a main road through the development so I doubt they would do it.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - tony (2nd Mar 2015 - 09:11:03) The developer's propaganda put through my door by their PR agents suggested all sorts of things, including a new 'Gateway to the National Park', they even marked the exact spot on the map, but I couldn't work out exactly what is was, except that, going by the fuzzy drawing, it was all going to be amazingly green and wonderful, for a large sprawling housing estate. They reckon that Liphook will turn into some sort of international tourist destination and make us all millionaires, selling souvenirs and Liphook Rock, well, they as good as said so! There was even a letter by that bloke off the telly, Grand Designs, saying how thrilled he was with it all and would build a row of houses there himself, heck, even HRH The Prince of Wales seems to have written in support, although I think they probably had to pay a fee for that! One or two things I couldn't find though. Any mention of that 'mini' relief road, parking for all those tourists or perhaps most important of all, funding for the community facilities! The small print seems to be missing. So the jury is out for me. All I can tell you is that their housing estate may or may not be a little better for Liphook than any of the other housing estates, but they definitely have slicker PR! Until they've promised a relief road in writing, with funding, I would take it with a pinch of salt, you can call your company whatever you like, hire the Pope to write a supporting letter, but you're still a property developer to me!

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - Dawn Hoskins (2nd Mar 2015 - 10:19:08) If history was reversed and we had the chance to 'route' traffic around the centre completely - I sure we would....anyone got a time machine.....No So living with what we've got and in times of austerity we cannot expect government funds to lay roads, it is as simple as that. I has been said many times that the Bohunt development is a little better for Liphook than any of the other housing estates - but what people seem to be missing is that bohunt will not count towards our numbers. We will HAVE TO have another development. Full stop. We have been told by central government. However - we can choose to ALSO have bohunt if we wish. People have voted on the SDNP to give their wishes - either for or against. However, it upsets me that people think this is an 'either - or' situation. It is not. It is a 'housing' PLUS 'more housing' situation. It is EHDC that must make up the numbers - NOT the South Downs National Park. The SDNP numbers don't count for anything except for unnecessarily high numbers of houses and cars WAY OVER the limit that have already been set in stone by central government. Now if you can get any of the EHDC area developers to talk to one another - that I would go for. That sort of consortium can only be good for the village, but even that cannot turn back time and alter the chaotic layout of the triple roundabouts in the centre of the village.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - tony (2nd Mar 2015 - 11:08:40) Thanks for clarifying that Dawn, but perhaps the damage has already been done, I think every resident of the Berg estate has already written in supporting this scheme, believing it would let them off the hook! We've never been in greater need of leadership from our councillors, putting our demands to the authorities, shouting the odds on behalf of this village. Where are they?

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - GM (2nd Mar 2015 - 11:59:04) @sjenner What are you classing as amenities exactly? In terms of funding, there are S106 agreements to be adhered to for a start. Also, those fields have not been in use for years. Anyone living locally knows this, so saying the developer is changing the view etc etc is pretty redundant.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - Kevin Jackson (2nd Mar 2015 - 14:05:15) It is worth noting that the SDNP also have quotas of housing to fulfil and those houses will have to go somewhere.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - Karen F (2nd Mar 2015 - 16:07:51) Just a little note to Tony.....I live on the Berg Estate and I haven't written to support the Bohunt Development. I also do not think for one minute that building on this land will 'let us off the hook'. I am hoping that the decisions made regarding the additional homes needed within our village are the right ones. Creating divisions between all those involved with the prospective sites is doing nothing for community relations. Life in Liphook will be very difficult if these homes are built in the wrong place. So let us think together and work together to make sure they aren't.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - MJB (2nd Mar 2015 - 17:15:44) Setting aside the argument whether to build on the Bohunt Manor site or not there several logistical reasons why the Bohunt Manor development should not proceed The vast majority of traffic flows through The Square to and from the Haslemere and Headley Roads. Most of the traffic from the proposed development will enter The Square on its way to Haslemere, Bordon and the A3. A golden opportunity was lost to construct a viable relief road through to the Haslemere Road when the Sainsbury’s development was constructed, but that’s now an opportunity lost. The likelihood of the Medical Centre progressing is slim with the current NHS cut backs. If this is the case then an alternative planning application will be proposed by the developer probably some more dwellings which will increase the problem.. The foul and surface water drainage will be treated using a Living Water Treatment system which I understand works OK, but is liable to problems when there is a surge due to high rainfall or the residents discharge oils including sump oils and excess grease into the system. I know from the Web that these systems are usually used in small isolated communities with a lot less houses, but can’t find any reference to their use on larger developments such as the 140 houses, Medical Centre, Football Pavilion café and shop proposed on Bohunt. I also wonder if the Northcott Estate [Foley Manor] is aware of the proposal to discharge this treated sewage into their lakes and streams. Finally the long term management, funding and maintenance of the all these facilities seems a bit vague. I hope that the SDNP will consider all of this as part of their appraisal now underway. I obtained all of this information from the detailed documentation and comments lodged on the SDNP Web site, so I suggest that all Posters take a bit of time to read it as well.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - Ian (2nd Mar 2015 - 17:40:07) Well said Karen, your last two paragraphs are the most sensible things written in various threads on Talkback regarding all the proposed new homes for sometime now.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - Goin underground (2nd Mar 2015 - 19:19:46) Part of the issue at school time is the constant flow of kids using the crossing and stopping the traffic every 5 seconds. I know it doesn't solve the problem of lots of cars but putting in an underpass for pedestrians would help matters. Has that ever been considered?

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - Jay W (2nd Mar 2015 - 20:09:35) Goin underground - good point but unless they can find that old underground passageway from the Anchor to (I think) Lloyds Bank I doubt that is going to happen!

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - stacey (2nd Mar 2015 - 21:32:13) I was at the recent parish council meeting where it was explained that the SDNP has fullfilled their 5 year land supply, and that any housing given over to a large development at Bohunt, would mean that smaller housing requests elsewhere in the Park would not go ahead, perhaps in areas where not much land comes forward anyway. It is not a choice between sites, that is not how it is going to work, when we have 2 neighbouring authorities, it is a question that we still need to find the 175 houses within the non National Park areas as well. It would mean therefore we would have the houses at Bohunt, and another large estate built. Even if EHDC councillors refuse current applications, a government inspector could reverse their descisions on appeal, they will not see " well there is another site in the National Park" as a valid arguement.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - Simon (3rd Mar 2015 - 10:15:56) There are so many applications to build in Liphook - it seems the shoe is on the wrong foot here and causing some genuine upset. So when a plan that may be good for the village comes in, then we're not ready for it! I can't find a suitable, consulted, management plan for the village and surrounding areas. We seem to be allowing any plan and the village houses are all losing gardens to development, the protected areas aren't respected and some plans aren't viable from the start causing unnecessary upset and worry. There may be a plan but it isn't clear or communicated clearly enough. A village plan would identify the areas to build, the areas which are protected and the investment in infrastructure per sq/m or acre etc to provide relief to the local community in minimising the impact of more people to the area. (Which have been prescribed by Liphook not by a developer with a financial desire to get planning). It would also have any infrastructure planned including roads and schools etc in a 20 year to 50 year plan for the area. I think developers can play a part in the positive development of the village but not on their terms. We're 5 years in Liphook and its a mere jot to some of the locals who've been around for ten times this. However with a train route to London in an hour and access to A3 and great schools etc more people will want to come - it is understandable. It won't stop so we need to manage it better. My greatest worry is that people build - promising add on's for the village that isn't needed or don't come to reality. So if we have a plan which Liphook could fit new development in to and we're all aligned on then we can pick a site and development on merit or whether it fits the long term strategy and especially to desired standard for the villagers.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - helen (3rd Mar 2015 - 11:02:54) Good idea in principle S but the site has to accord with Narional Plans, and also the local plans being prepared by EHDC and the SDNP, there are so many people who have conflicting views how are people going to agree? It also would not stop the current sites in the pipeline, who would have the right to build, there are at least 680 houses already waiting to be built with planning permission. Any plan would also have to designate land for a traveller site. Now that really would be contentious!

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - Karina (3rd Mar 2015 - 14:16:50) My response is simple: Liphook can be proud to be in part on the SDNP land and its boudaries are not for discussion. As a National Park, the site on Bohunt Manor must not ve developed as this would set a precedent to others wanted to build for profit on such national heritage sites. Everybody knows there is/are brownfield site/s available. All NIMBYs (not in my backyard) views should be taken as such. Liphook's eternal traffic problems will not be resolved by building in one place or another, or by building extra roads. It is simple: WALK or CYCLE whenever you can, especially the short local trips. It's amazing how the traffic problems disappear during school holidays. Children should always walk to school unless they qualify for a school bus, for their own good.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - Anon (3rd Mar 2015 - 14:31:02) Interesting to see on the latest bit of propaganda to come through my door re Bohunt Park that the map has been drawn to deliberately mislead about the density of this site. Lots of green spaces but not many houses. They really are using every trick in the book to manipulate local public opinion

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - jen (3rd Mar 2015 - 14:52:32) Dear Anon (ahem!) You say that they are deliberately misleading us about the density of the scheme by showing lots of green spaces. Does this mean that the green spaces shown are not representative of the scheme and drawings are therefore not to scale and that, in reality, the houses will cover more land than is shown on the plan. If the drawings are to scale, are you then happy with the density and the amount of green space proposed

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - Darren Ellis (3rd Mar 2015 - 17:57:09) Karina I've been racking my brains (didn't take long admittedly) but haven't been able to think a any substantial "Brownfield Sites". The only ones that come to mind are the last piece of the OSU site (earmarked for industrial use but developer wants to put a Nursing Home on there and has gone to appeal as we speak), land behind Beaver Industrial Park (already given planning permission for about 11 houses and I think it is up for sale) and Land at Bleaches Industrial Site (again they want to build about 11 houses there but so far it has been refused) and that, I believe, is it. Lowsely Farm, Bohunt Manor, Northcott, Popes Field and Chiltley Farm are all agricultural land (in the case of Chiltley Farm, the only one which is actually in production producing chicks, all the others, at this moment, are lying fallow). If you can think of any other Brownfield Sites then they should come to the front of the queue for development first.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - Notmyrealname (3rd Mar 2015 - 18:05:39) Jen, firstly to address your snide ahem at my anonymity. As other users on other topics have stated, sometimes one cannot comfortably use ones real name on internet forums. This could be for a number of reasons that should not have to be explained, for example, just suppose I work for someone who has a financial stake in this development who would take a dim view of my opinions! Talkback quite rightly does not insist on real names being used so please, no more childish ahems! In relation to you other query No, I do not approve of the proposed Bohunt Manor development, regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy of their plan, only time will tell if their illustration is honest. In addition I do not approve of their spin in saying that somehow Liphook will be a better place to live if we let them build on our open spaces I do not approve of their vandalism of the land fronting the Old Portsmouth Road I do not approve of the WWF selling the land to developers in the first place I do not approve of the developer putting up signage that the village is getting a new surgery when it is not. And no, I don't favour any of the other sites proposed for development in Liphook. Regardless of their hype and spin, these developers are not looking to enhance Liphook in anyway, they want to build as many houses as they can and make as much money as they can, that is their business. Lets not forget that when we are reading their bull about the so called good they will be doing for us

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - jen (3rd Mar 2015 - 20:07:25) Dear Notmyrealname A.K.A Anon (!) First you say that - the map has been drawn to deliberately mislead about the density of this site. Lots of green spaces but not many houses - your words. This clearly means that the plan is inaccurate. Now you adopt an entirely different tone, stating - regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy of their plan, again your words. Does this suggest that perhaps you are having second thoughts now about your first entry and perhaps you are worried that the plan is indeed accurate and not, as you have so clearly implied, deliberately misleading. If I was being kind, I would say that because you have been put on the spot, so to speak, about your earlier assertion, you are now wriggling because you realise that your biased claim may just be that, and of course you have been found out. Your objections are your prerogative, but possibly subjective, and good for you making your views known, though clearly, from the content of your entry, you like housing developments which which have lots of green spaces but not many houses - your words verbatim. So it seems that, all other objections as listed by you aside, this is your type of development. I do not think that this is the way to arrive at any decision regarding this development, by which I mean making ridiculous statements as Anon has done. For my part, this development cannot be supported so long as it presents a massive pollution risk to the local streams, but other than that, it seems to offer quite a bit.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - GM (4th Mar 2015 - 12:35:13) I agree with Jen in terms of the pollution risk, there are many solutions to this though which could be explored. To me though, these are a couple of redundant fields that haven\'t been used in years. Fact of the matter is one way or another one of the proposed developments (at least) will get the go ahead. The reason I would prefer this over any other is actually relatively simple: - 1) It\'s use of redundant land, brownfield sites are virtually non existent in the area now. 2) The developer has allowed for provisions for the surgery and other items, other developments haven\'t. 3) Now, in terms of provision, it\'s exactly that! I see a lot of comments where people are saying the developer \"has promised\" or \"has included\" a new surgery, actually they haven\'t. It\'s not down to them to fund such a scheme or building. In allowing for a provision, that\'s a different matter entirely. Although, it states in the planning statement the following: - \"The medical centre will be delivered prior to the occupation of the 70th dwelling including car parking facilities and landscaping. Following completion to shell finish, the building will be available for a period of 12 months during which Liphook & Liss Surgery and Liphook Village Surgery will have an option to enter into a lease for the building. On exercise of the option, the building will be fitted out to industry standards (but not including fit out of any specialist medical equipment). If the option is not exercised, then the Landowner would be able to pursue other potential uses of the building, subject to obtaining planning permission.\" So basically they will build it, but if there are no takers then it\'ll be used as something else, can\'t really argue with that. 4) \"The reason the fields are in the state they are in is that the owners have deliberately allowed the area to degenerate precisely to persuade opinion that anything is better than what we see at present.\" No, the fields are in the state they are in because the land isn\'t being used, end of story! It\'s not to persuade anything at all and quite frankly, this is a matter of opinion, and should be kept as such rather than stating as a fact. 5) \"The view over the national park will be tarnished\" Another popular comment. Now, maybe I\'m blind but there isn\'t much of a view from Portsmouth Road, and I certainly haven\'t seen over the last 30 years, cars pulling up or pedestrians stopping to admire \"the view\" 6) \"Interesting to see on the latest bit of propaganda to come through my door re Bohunt Park that the map has been drawn to deliberately mislead about the density of this site. Lots of green spaces but not many houses.\" If you take the time to look, you will notice the original application was 210 plots, now down to 140, so common sense would suggest there will be more green space. Also drawings are done to scale, and if these are the ones used in the planning application, they can\'t then go about altering them for their \"propaganda\" If people actually took the time to read through the documents in the planning application, rather than reading and believing some (not all) rather ill informed, gossip fueled comments in the local media and on here, there would probably be a better understanding. On another note, I\'d love to know how many of the objectors happily moved into the Canada Way Estate when it was built...

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - A. Ryan (5th Mar 2015 - 16:44:38) Well said GM Looking at the amount of support for the Bohunt development it beggars beyond belief why the Parish council are so opposed to it. They are supposed to be there for the benefit of the people, and not for their own personal opinions, so why are they so against these two fields being used to benefit the people of Liphook. Why would one be in favour for a development that would have more houses crammed into a smaller area that is prone to flooding with no other benefits? I seem to missing something here. Are they looking at the same fields as the rest of us as it must be through rose tinted glasses. Would they like to come and walk with me up Chapel common and see some really beautiful countryside? GM made a very valid point, how many of those opposing live in properties that have been built in the last twenty five years, and why did YOU come here, you helped create a bigger village. Many will remember all the land round here before it was built on. It seems to me the developer has done a lot of home work on this unlike the exhibition held last year for Chiltlee development, which I thought was a shambles. Also I believe the houses must be built to pay towards building the health center so hence there is no health center! This seems to be ridiculous in dragging this out. We need more housing now, so let them get on with it.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - Keith (5th Mar 2015 - 17:54:27) There is a pressing need for new housing. Those who say "we don't want any new houses anywhere in the village" should remember that for each and every one living here, at some point in history, however old their house is, their house was "new development" If we want our young people to stand any chance of ever getting on the property ladder and having a place to call their own, whether as an owner or a tenant we simply need to build more properties, or costs will continue to rise and more and more people will find they are into their 40s or 50s before they can afford to have their own home. Yes the government can bribe them with 20% off but bear in mind your 20% off home will not have to meet the same environmental standards as a normal home, so will probably cost you more to run in the long term. The 20% off is a gift to developers, not to first time buyers.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - MJB (5th Mar 2015 - 19:24:03) In response to A Ryan I refer to my previous comment on this thread regarding the development of the Bohunt Manor Estate:- Setting aside the argument whether to build on the Bohunt Manor site or not there several logistical reasons why the Bohunt Manor development should not proceed The vast majority of traffic flows through The Square to and from the Haslemere and Headley Roads. Most of the traffic from the proposed development will enter The Square on its way to Haslemere, Bordon and the A3. A golden opportunity was lost to construct a viable relief road through to the Haslemere Road when the Sainsbury’s development was constructed, but that’s now an opportunity lost. The likelihood of the Medical Centre progressing is slim with the current NHS cut backs. If this is the case then an alternative planning application will be proposed by the developer probably some more dwellings which will increase the problem. The foul and surface water drainage will be treated using a Living Water Treatment system which I understand works OK, but is liable to problems when there is a surge due to high rainfall or the residents discharge oils including sump oils and excess grease into the system. I know from the Web that these systems are usually used in small isolated communities with a lot less houses, but can’t find any reference to their use on larger developments such as the 140 houses, Medical Centre, Football Pavilion café and shop proposed on Bohunt. I also wonder if the Northcott Estate [Foley Manor] is aware of the proposal to discharge this treated sewage into their lakes and streams. Finally the long term management, funding and maintenance of the all these facilities seems a bit vague. I hope that the SDNP will consider all of this as part of their appraisal now underway. I obtained all of this information from the detailed documentation and comments lodged on the SDNP Web site, so I suggest that all Posters take a bit of time to read it as well. I also note from the Parish Council Web site that they objected to the development because:- Object on the following grounds: 1. There is no proven need now that both EHDC & SDNP have a five-year housing supply; 2. The proposal is outside the settlement boundary; 3. The SDNP should be protected for the benefit of nature & wildlife, & for future generations; 4. There are sufficient SHLAA sites suitable for the 175 houses outside the SDNP; 5. The proposed layout blocks a potential, alternative route through the village for traffic, thereby continually increasing congestion in The Square; 6. The developer’s own Traffic Survey projection shows that The Square will be at full capacity by 2020 during peak periods, confirming the need for a relief road; 7. Failure to make use of the proposed new roundabout to access the site, & instead using three new junctions, is likely to cause traffic delays; 8. The size of application, 140 houses, exceeds JCS Policy CP10 which only permits small scale developments in the Park; by taking all & more of SDNP’s housing allocation it would deny 5 other vital, small communities from meeting their social & economic housing needs; 9. The proposed living water style treatment system runs the risk of polluting the existing rivers; 10. The two proposed T-junctions in such close proximity to the proposed roundabout would increase the risk of a traffic/pedestrian accident; this risk should be evaluated by Hampshire County Council Highways Department. I also note from the Comments on the SDNP Web site that concerns have been expressed about the costs to the Parish and Residents in respect of the management and maintenance of the Foul water sewage system and surface water system, café, shop, landscaping and the Nature Reserve and SANGS. The management and costs are in perpetuity so this responsibility cannot be ignored. I really do think it is important for all those with an interest in Liphook and the Bohunt Estate to inspect the documentation prepared by the developers including the detailed written comments from members of the public & other organisations to ensure that they are fully aware of the proposals which will affect Liphook’s future. Finally I have been a resident of Liphook for nearly 40 years!

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - Hal (5th Mar 2015 - 22:05:03) A.Ryan, there seems to be a misconception that the houses need to be built to fund a health centre. As I understand it, there is no funding whatsoever for a health centre, whether the houses get built or not. The land is being made available for anyone who would like to build a health centre on the land if the houses are allowed to be built. No one can afford to fund it so it will not be built. The land will then revert to the developers.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - bdavies (6th Mar 2015 - 10:00:52) GM, It is a grubby argument to infer that if you live in a new estate you are a hypocrite to oppose controversial building schemes. It is a ploy often used by building firms to justify their activity and to make those opposing them feel in some way guilty. Why not consider all housing – “anyone that lives in a house now has no right to oppose our scheme”. Canada Way was brownfield; Bohunt is Greenfield - a world of difference. There is absolutely no incentive whatsoever for Liphook to have the extra housing at Bohunt unless you believe the myth of magically conjured up infrastructure improvement promises and offers of sports pavilions and medical centres and all manner of other amenity wonders that are unbelievable. Or you enter into the argument over which side of the village avoids having more housing forced onto it. And GM, the view from where I am across those “redundant” fields is pretty good. It used to be a lot better before the owners tore up the hedgerow and erected ugly and unnecessary high fencing around the non-existent medical centre. Did GVI advise them to do that? Community minded this is not.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - A. Ryan (6th Mar 2015 - 13:36:32) Bdavies, It is a grubby little argument, only in the fact that it makes for an uncomfortable truth. Everyone living in Liphook has created the size it is now. There are many families with children, who one would assume would like to see them homed somewhere. Those children will make you all grandparents, they too will need housing. One assumes that some families moved here for the excellent Bohunt School, and future families may do the same. Just because no one wants more housing does not mean the world will stop producing next generations. I would like to know where people would prefer more housing to go in Liphook, for as sure as the sun comes up tomorrow we will get more. If you would prefer a little hamlet without services that Liphook provides then you will pay a premium to do so. As for the medical center, my understanding of it is that houses have to be built to fund the building of it. Having a health center like the one in Haslemere seems logical to me. The medical centre (like the football pitch) has to be self funded. The developer is ONLY providing land with a clawback clause which means that they get the land back if it is not developed in a certain number of years.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - Kevin Jackson (6th Mar 2015 - 15:20:13) At least they are making the land available for building a medical centre and football pitch. We all know that it has to be self funded - this has been hammered home enough on this site. None of the other developers are offering Liphook anything other than their developers contribution which is mandatory.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - Dawn Hoskins (6th Mar 2015 - 15:24:10) Yes - it is 'as sure as the sun comes up tomorrow' that we will get more - because the government have told EHDC what numbers they have to build. We will get that number WITHIN the EHDC boundary whether we want it or not. The Bohunt site is NOT within this boundary and would be an extra lot of houses that we are not required to have. We are already going to lumbered with hundreds and hundreds of new houses - why would you consciously vote for hundreds more, which are not compulsory, on top of the ones we already don't want? It is madness.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - GM (6th Mar 2015 - 16:45:42) Thanks A Ryan, I'm trying to look at this as objectively as possible. MJB - I agree in principle with your statement regarding traffic, and yes I do think another avenue needs to be explored regarding the SW and FW discharge. Although there are plenty of existing sites countrywide that have this in place already and is strictly monitored by the EA. Regarding the health centre, the comment I found in my post above was from the developers planning statement. Also, where did you find those PC comments about refusal? Been on the website but can't find them anywhere. Hal - Judging from the quote from the planning statement above, it seems pretty clear the building will be done, it's then down to the NHS or local trusts to take the developer up on the lease. Bdavies - Not a grubby argument at all, but makes it interesting when it's people on these areas objecting on the basis of the village getting too big, the village doesn't need more housing, or words along those lines. It didn't bother them moving here when the new estate was being built did it? Brown or greenfield regardless. Fact is, as I believe Dawn Hoskins has previously said on posts, houses will be built and compared to the others, this development does offer more than Chiltlee and Lowsley for example which will be houses, a small SANGS area and not much more. Although I'm aware the 2 applications I've just mentioned are within the EHDC boundary Also, when things are in black and white on a planning statement, it's not a myth or magic And please, look at my comment about the fields again. Fact is they have not been in use for the best part of a decade. And you're personal view of them does not constitute what everyone else sees going past, and I'll say again, I can't recall people stopping to look. The high fencing is for safety purposes and has to be done. Not all building projects start and are miraculously completed within a couple of months. My opinion is they are waiting for approval (if it happens) on the rest of the project before proceeding. Financially, as a business, and the fact they own the land, they have every right to do this. If the application doesn't happen, I'd imagine they'll look to sell the land for Agricultural use. Ed - Regarding the med centre, the fit out and occupation need to be self funded, according to the planning statement, the building in principle will be built, it's then a question if anyone wants it for which there will be a 12 month window. I believe the self fund building applies to LFC Dawn - Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the allocation for 175 dwellings within the EHDC boundary? I've read so many different figures by people on the boards but I've just read through the EHDC housing and employment allocations which seems to indicate this.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - Keith (6th Mar 2015 - 17:18:00) The figure of 175 houses has come up because this was the figure in the Joint Core Strategy of EHDC and SDNP which was approved last year. It is important to note though I think that the Joint Core Strategy says "a minimum of" and not "a total of". So yes there will need to be 175 units but that is the minimum, it does not mean there cannot/will not be more. However, I don't think people should get too hooked up on the EHDC, SDNP boundary, the agreed strategy is a JOINT strategy so whether on the EHDC side of the border or the SDNP side, the development will still count towards the target of 175 units for Liphook. BUT, just to complicate things further, the SDNP are now working on their own Local Plan which is expected to come into force late in 2017. They have not yet formally released figures but the expectation is that Liphook, Liss and Petersfield at this end of the SDNP and Lewes and Newhaven at the far end of the SDNP will have to take more houses than are currently set out in the Joint Core Strategy since the current view of the SDNP is that any significant development should be on the periphery of the park and not in the centre.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - MJB (6th Mar 2015 - 17:53:39) GM The route to the Parish Council Planning Committee meeting is :- Log on to the Parish Council Web Site Click on Meetings Then Planning Committee Scroll down Agendas until you reach Meeting Minutes Click on 16th February 2015 Click on Minutes

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - stacey (6th Mar 2015 - 19:45:51) The joint core strategy has ceased to exsist, so no the housing figures do not apply across the board in both areas. The figures are for EHDC alone. The SDNP have not been given a housing numbers allocation, as they have a 5 year land supply, which at the rime Liphook got given the numbers did not exist. You are all ignoring the National Plan policy for the National Parks, any new housing estate in the NP has to be justified on the basis that land is not available outside of the National Park area. The allocations plan of both areas can be viewed online where the SDNP has rejected the Bohunt site as unsuitable for housing.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - tony (6th Mar 2015 - 21:16:21) The medical centre seems to have gone from a "gift to the community" to a shell of a structure, owned by the builders, which we will have to finish (whatever that entails) if we can afford it (we can't), then lease at an unknown rent (again if we can afford it, which we can't) or else they can do whatever they like with it, as it's now a brownfield site, pefectly suitable for development!!! Actually I'm a little impressed at such deviousness, if that's the correct word! But it doesn't sound much like a gift at all any more. And a question for their spokesperson. Why is the company director and possibly others seemingly listed in Liechtenstein yet the company trading address is in Battersea and is there any relationship to GVI (North) of a similar address, dissolved in 2012? I'm sure I've just got the wrong end of the stick! Here is an interesting statement from Wikipedia: 'In August 2009, the British Government Department, HM Revenue & Customs, agreed with Liechtenstein to start exchanging information. It is believed that up to 5,000 British investors have roughly £3 billion deposited in accounts and trusts in the country'. Does that have any relevence to the GVI structure and if so, why? Can we have confidence this company will live up to it's name and hang around to honour it's pledges, unlike virtually every other major developer I can think of? But the green fuzzy drawings did look very nice, so that's sort of reassuring I guess.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - steve miller (6th Mar 2015 - 22:07:13) Dawn You seem to be believe that growth is by definition a bad thing. I am not sure that that is necessarily true given the demonstable need for a very significant amount of additional housing accross the whole of the UK and particularly in the South East. I personally see no real objection to Liphook getting larger (even significantly larger) provided that this growth is properly planned and recognises the need for appropriate improvements in local infrastructure. The real problem at the moment is that this growth is driven almost entirely by developers and the authorities seem unable or unwilling to lay down a sensible framework around which additional housing can be provided. Whilst I recognise the strength of feeling around impinging on the national park I think that it is worth taking a step back and considering the merits of development in this area had the (in my veiw rather dubious) decision not been taken to allow the boundary to come almost into the centre of the village.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - tony (7th Mar 2015 - 00:55:42) Name & Registered Office: GREEN VILLAGE INVESTMENTS (NORTH) LTD 20 BURNELLI BUILDING 352 QUEENSTOWN ROAD LONDON ENGLAND SW8 4NG Company No. 08317555 Status: Dissolved 22/07/2014 Date of Incorporation: 04/12/2012 Country of Origin: United Kingdom Company Type: Private Limited Company Nature of Business (SIC): None Supplied Accounting Reference Date: 31/12 Last Accounts Made Up To: (NO ACCOUNTS FILED) ----------------------------------------------- This is a summarised account from Companies House and you can make of it what you will. I can't trace any reference to Green Valley Investments of the same address, even though that is the address that has previously been mentioned for them. There are many possibilities, perhaps they are using a trading name rather than incorporating (although I believe that would be unusual for such a large development), perhaps my limited searches missed something, a variation in names etc. Ether way, I think it should raise outstanding questions as to exactly who Green Valley Investments are, who owns it and whether they have any association with the above company of the same mentioned address, which I believe was struck out by Companies House in 2014, no accounts filed from what I can see. There may be a perfectly rational explanation on all accounts. Over to them to explain and reassure us, don't you think we deserve that?

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - Keith (7th Mar 2015 - 09:02:58) Stacey Sorry, you are wrong. The Joint Core Strategy has very much not "ceased to exist". If it had I think the council tax payers of EHDC would rightly be up in arms about the several hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on its production The Joint Core Strategy (JCS) was adopted by EHDC on 8 May 2014 and by the South Downs National Park Authority on 26 June 2014 and remains the principal planning guidance for this area. Regarding housing numbers, policy CP10 of the Joint Core Strategy states Provision is made for a minimum increase of 10,060 dwellings in the period 2011 to 2028 by means of: The allocation of sites at the most sustainable settlements to provide: a minimum of 700 dwellings at Alton, Horndean and Petersfield; a minimum of 200 dwellings at Clanfield; a minimum of 175 dwellings at both Liphook and Four Marks/South Medstead; a minimum of 150 dwellings at both Liss and Rowlands Castle; a minimum of 150 dwellings at other villages outside the National Park; a minimum of 100 dwellings at other villages in the National Park You maybe are confused by SDNP now working on their own local plan. This will come into effect hopefully late in 2017. For SDNP, the Joint Core Strategy was only ever seen as a stop-gap while they compiled their own local plan, but due to the enormous size of the National Park, this is a lengthy task - so yes at some point the JCS will apply only to EHDC but not for at least another 2 to 3 years.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - Dawn Hoskins (7th Mar 2015 - 11:08:28) Hi Steve, I have no objection to slow and natural growth, what I find scary is that a new line in the sand has been drawn (Joint Core Strategy) with a long life span. However, the developers are so desperate to rake in the cash - that despite the requirement to build xxxx hundred houses in the village during the next couple of decades, these are all going to happen as soon as the starters pistol has gone off. The Joint core strategy was created by accounting for the planning permissions already granted and on their merry way! (approx’ 700 houses (give or take)). But (according to the inspectorate) that wasn’t enough for us - so in last May they said that IN ADDITION to those already granted – we had to have ANOTHER 175 houses at a minimum. For a small community like ours, having one sudden influx of, say 100, new houses – probably equates to approx’ 200 adults and 200 children and 200 new cars – that a big and sudden impact. Times those numbers by 9 – say 900 homes, 1,800 adults & 1,800 children, 1,800 cars….Well I think that is too much too fast. We already had a huge number on the way, adding another 175 to the mix makes the total we are about to be inundated with – simply a mind blowing number and a mind blowing change for our schools and public services. I am sure we will manage – because we will have to – just like every other small village like our in the South; but the reason they plan ahead for a few decades is to prevent this. They don’t account for the ‘clever’ developers owning land banks – just waiting for the new ‘target’ then drawing up their plans (literally overnight) on the day that target is realised. That is why we had so many sudden arrivals for permission of….175 houses. To add, or chose to add, another few hundred houses on top of all that – which are not compulsory, and to top it off….in the National Park…….it is just too much.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - sjenner (8th Mar 2015 - 05:56:24) There are 4,000 houses and 5,500 jobs being generated at Whitehill and Bordon. The original housing quota was 5,500 new houses and 7,000 jobs, in line with the South East Plan and Green Town Vision but this was reduced - hoorah for that! As always the housing goes up first so new houses, no extra jobs yet as they are still trying to attract employers to "Invest in Bordon". So, we get houses bought by people who need to get to their existing jobs outside of Bordon and guess where thy are being encouraged to commute from? www.whitehillbordon.com/... And GM, GVI representative or whatever you are, there is one thing more desperate than accusing the residents of Canada Way of hypocrisy and that is trying to rig the application by getting non-residents to support this scheme. It's unlikely many of those "supporters" are genuine or have any vested interest in Liphook even in the unlikely event that they once lived here. It is transparent that the Medical Centre is another myth. Remember these are the same tricksters that tried to bring us the much needed Gospel Hall.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - GM (9th Mar 2015 - 12:33:39) Keith/Dawn/MJB, thanks for clearing that up regarding my question above. I was a little unsure how all this works. @sjenner, okay you can knock that off for a start. I'm not a GVI .representative. However, I am someone who believes in both sides of an argument and getting a fair reflection of arguments from both sides. You keep making an awful lot of opinionated claims that twice I have asked you to justify, and both times you have ignored the request, instead coming back to your (quite frankly) boring developer conspiracy theories. You talk a lot about people stating facts, yet have failed to do so yourself. Yes there are support comments from outside the parish, as there are objections. Now perhaps you will actually answer me directly this time, how is it so transparent about the medical centre not happening? Have you bothered to read the actual planning documents? I have made it easier by taking the quotes out above if that helps you at all, and if your time is at such a premium... My personal view is simple, I don't see much wrong with the development in itself. However, the sewage discharge and infastructure would need to be looked at more closely. As stated above, the discharge can be monitored by the EA and discharge direct to watercourses already occurs in many areas of the UK and is totally legit. Regarding traffic, that's another issue entirely. However, I'd imagine traffic studies have been done for the area so I'm off to look through these now!

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - liz (9th Mar 2015 - 14:25:11) GM As you seem to be so knowledgeable, perhaps you can tell us who, exactly, is going to pay for the Medical Centre? And the football facilities for that matter.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - Kevin Jackson (9th Mar 2015 - 14:32:51) I do so agree with GM when he/she hits back as being called partisan because of a vested interest. Why oh why do people with no proof whatsoever, accuse other people who post on this site opinions with which they do not agree, of having a vested and biased interest or in the modern vernacular "A Hidden Agenda". We see it time and again on this site with posters being accused of working for The Herald for example or GVI in this case. Mr Jenner stop your unfounded accusations and name calling and GM is quite right there are as many objectors as supporters coming from outside Liphook.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - GM (11th Mar 2015 - 10:52:09) Thanks Kevin Hi Liz, please, read the quotes taken from the planning statement above along with my other posts. I'm not claiming to be an expert, I have just read through the documents associated with the planning reference. I must have posted about this at least twice now on this thread. It is quite clear how it will be progressed, the shell will be built, then it'll be down to the local trust/bupa/whoever to take up the lease and the fit out within 12 months, this is quite standard practice within developments where these types of buildings (and uses) are proposed. Football facilities are a different matter altogether reading through the statement.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - liz (11th Mar 2015 - 11:11:25) GM I'm sorry but local "trust/bupa/whoever" doesn't really answer the question. As we all know, there is no funding for either the health centre or the football facilities. The health centre may of course interest someone as a private clinic, which is probably what will happen if it goes ahead, but not exactly the community facility some seem to think they will get! I believe the developers will be banking on the funding not happening in the required timescale and the land reverting or staying in their ownership allowing a further application for housing; being worth more money

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - GM (11th Mar 2015 - 15:07:33) Liz, please read what I've previously written. It does answer the question as it'll be down to whoever takes up the lease on the shell to do the fit out This is what I've previously said: - Now, in terms of provision, it's exactly that! I see a lot of comments where people are saying the developer "has promised" or "has included" a new surgery, actually they haven't. It's not down to them to fund such a scheme or building. In allowing for a provision, that's a different matter entirely. Although, it states in the planning statement the following: - "The medical centre will be delivered prior to the occupation of the 70th dwelling including car parking facilities and landscaping. Following completion to shell finish, the building will be available for a period of 12 months during which Liphook & Liss Surgery and Liphook Village Surgery will have an option to enter into a lease for the building. On exercise of the option, the building will be fitted out to industry standards (but not including fit out of any specialist medical equipment). If the option is not exercised, then the Landowner would be able to pursue other potential uses of the building, subject to obtaining planning permission." So basically they will build it, but if there are no takers then it'll be used as something else, can't really argue with that. You asked who will fund it, I answered that. The shell will be built, it's down to any potential occupier to take up the lease and fit out the place within 12 months.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - tony (11th Mar 2015 - 15:31:12) GM, does anybody know what is the cost and terms of the lease? If the surgeries mentioned have declined to enter into a lease for the building, then perhaps it's because they think it offers poor value. Now that we've discounted this building from being a gift, perhaps it's really a liability? I wonder if the surgeries who were presumably offered sale of the lease and declined would be willing to comment? Because if the cost and terms of the lease render it a white elephant, wouldn't that be strong evidence that the builders, whoever they are, residing in Liechtenstein or any other tax jurisdiction, are really playing mind games? If so, what would that tell us about how far we should trust anything they may appear to say? Perhaps we would be well advised to take the lot of it with a pinch of salt!

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - GM (12th Mar 2015 - 09:41:57) Hi Tony, No I haven't been able to find details of that, but considering it's early days and construction has not actually commenced, I'd imagine they wouldn't start advertising it until they are further along I see where you're coming from about the building being a liability. However, it states after a year they would look at other options. I don't think they would look to put too much on the lease at it wouldn't be commercially viable for them to do so. This is because there would be the cost of building the actual shell itself plus all services, drainage and infastructure, that would cost a chunk. If the option on the lease isn't taken then they would have to go through the hassle of working out what the building could be used for, if anything else, and doing a new planning application for change of use. All of which costs money. Worst case scenario for the developer is actually putting more houses there, they wouldn't make too much, if anything, out of this because of the new application, demolition plus rebuild of say (for example) 3 semi detached properties in that area. That would involve ripping everything out and starting again. By the time it's all done, they'd probably be lucky to break even within that area. Also take into account that by the time they submit the application, and get it passed, it's likely 18 months will have passed. So there would be a chance the contractor building the estate would be offsite, so you'd also have to factor in their mobilisation charges. Keith or Kevin (not sure which of them) has previously said on another thread that they have been involved in previous planning applications, my apologies in advance if I've got the wrong people gents! They may be able to enlighten things more on the planning side, but from a commercial standpoint, the developer would probably lose money by trying to charge an over inflated lease. Just to clarify to people on here, I have nothing to do with GVI. But I do try and look at new developments by taking a step back and trying to look at the whole picture, I also take the time to read through the application documents. I should point out though, I do work for a contractor on commercial projects such as industrial units, large one off houses (such as on the Wentworth Estate) and other types of build, except large housing projects. This is why my opinions on commercial viability are not just wild assumptions. I don't have any hidden agenda. Hope I've covered everything there but let me know if I've missed anything out from your questions :-)

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - A. Ryan (12th Mar 2015 - 10:19:52) Liz Perhaps you too would be more knowledgeable if you read the documents that have been submitted for this development. They are there for all to see and to make their own minds up, as did I. All these conspiracies!! Just because people favour this development above others does not mean we are collaborators or on the payroll Perhaps we want the best solution for Liphook, and not be lumbered with more housing in the wrong areas.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - stacey (12th Mar 2015 - 22:55:24) Yet again we have posters under the illusion that by building at Bohunt it will stop the other developments. No it will not! the lowsley farm site has been put forward by ehdc as the site to take the 175 houses . This figure is also only a minimum figure! A starting point, not a finishing point! The appeal for the Bramshott place nursing home has not been decided yet, and the two housing applications recently rejected by EHDC could appeal. If they do appeal, the fact that there is an application in for Bohunt Manor would not be a factor in stopping those two housing sites. Bohunt h as to meet more stringent criteria, being in the National Park, it has to meet National Planning Policy for a development that size. The Bohunt application will not be decided on how many people write in to support/ oppose this development, it will be decided on planning criteria for the National Park. All new housing is in the wrong place for those who oppose it! There are just as many people who think the application for Bohunt is In the wrong place!

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - GM (13th Mar 2015 - 14:38:37) I don't think anyone is saying that Stacey, the way I read A Ryan's comment was simply about sites that some may view as inappropriate areas or not as good as other ones, not instead of ie; picking Bohunt will stop Lowsley and/or Chiltlee

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - A. Ryan (13th Mar 2015 - 16:11:54) Stacey, Would you not agree that the Lowsley site is too far out of Liphook, and too close to the A3 which would could have issues with noise and pollution? Would you not agree that Chiltlee chicken farm is also too far out and has issues with flooding? These may have been put forward for development but are really not the best places. There will be more houses built in the years to come, surely no one is that naive to think there would not be. Liphook has expanded over the last fifty years and will continue to do so, so let us get it right! This argument about planning criteria for the National Park is a bit open ended considering half of Hampshire is in it. You say there are just as many people who think the application for Bohunt is In the wrong place, have you looked to see how many have favoured it, and how many Liphook people have supported it? All have given addresses so this conspiracy that they are all false is laughable.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - liz (13th Mar 2015 - 17:01:58) A. Ryan I know what has been promised. I am also aware how flimsy it is and how much proper external financing, currently unavailable in except in the private sector, will be needed to make it work.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - A. Ryan (13th Mar 2015 - 20:53:24) Liz, I was responding to Stacey, are you one and the same?

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - stacey (13th Mar 2015 - 22:20:07) In answer to A RYan I particularly do not think that any of the current proposals will ever be in the right place, due to the increase in traffic, pressure on the schools etc. My point was that it will not be a question of deciding between Chiltley Farm, or Bohunt, or lowesly, all will probably be built on eventually,regardless, as the estates will not be decided upon by counting the objection or support letters. The developers are building in this area and the infastructure is not there to support it, whether it is Bohunt, Chiltley or Lowsley or on any site. The 175 houses are a starting figure, not a finishing figure. The 3K or more houses being planned for Bordon will only add to our misery as well.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - Ian (14th Mar 2015 - 09:37:12) This thread really is now going round and round in circles. Nothing new for the last few posts, surely must be time to close it off. Clearly most interested persons have entrenched views that will not be altered by the same familiar contributors repeatedly promoting the same old point of view. We know your positions now, both for and against, but really you are not going to convince anyone by insisting on having the last word on this thread

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - tony (14th Mar 2015 - 11:46:31) GM, thanks for your research and input, I appreciate that you are only taking a private interest as you work in this field, it's good to hear from someone impartial with professional experience. Just to close out this thread, not that I must have the last word(!) but as Ian said we're starting to go round in circles, let me say that we must take EVERYTHING that GVI (whoever they are) say with a pinch of salt until we know the terms of the leases offered on all the goodies. For example an onerous 12 month lease on the farm shop, football field, cafe, allotments, surgery etc, is no good to anyone, no-one will EVER take them up on it, especially with all the final fit investment needed by the lessees, and ALL this infrastructure will remain in GVI ownership and control, pending THEIR decision as to what next to do with it. Do our council have the intelligence or courage to demand, and put into a legal contract, that all leases MUST be offered on fair terms and for long terms, renewable ad infinitum, or else the freeholds handed over, and that these sites must only be used for the purposes promised? Anything less and I bet you we'll never see any of this stuff. And that would mean that Liphook has well and truly been taken for a ride by developers, again!!!

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - Dawn Hoskins (14th Mar 2015 - 19:26:40) Tony re\'\'Do our council have the intelligence or courage to demand, and put into a legal contract, that all leases MUST be offered on fair terms and for long terms, renewable ad infinitum, or else the freeholds handed over, and that these sites must only be used for the purposes promised?... It is not Council owned land, it is a private company - the Council (be it Parish, District or County) have nothing to do with the planning or the decision-making.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - Keith (14th Mar 2015 - 22:16:44) Not strictly true Dawn, the planning authority (in this case the SDNP) could put restrictions on the type of use of the buildings as part of granting permission. I agree though that they could do little on rental charges or length of lease.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - Dawn Hoskins (15th Mar 2015 - 01:01:53) The South Downs National Park is not the Council. That is what I was trying to say. It is not down to the Council.

Re: Another View of Liphook Development - liz (16th Mar 2015 - 12:15:54) GHA Ryan I was responding to your previous post of 12 March. Perhaps you are a different A Ryan!

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home