Post Reply
Talkback Home

Old hospital site. - Sarah (6th Jul 2004  11:27:35) Today whilst walking my dog round the old hospital site above Radford Park, I was stooped by a workman, who told me this was now private property, and I was trespassing. After further conversation with him he said it was owned by a company in Croydon and is now going to become old peoples homes. Does anyone know any more about this?

Re: Old hospital site. - Harry Hudson (8th Jul 2004  09:37:31) In response to Sarah's post, it may be helpful to forward to her two letters sent by Bill Gair, of Helical (Liphook) Ltd, to the Liphook Herald, which set out the situation in relation to the former St George's Hospital site. Regards, Harry The Editor Liphook Herald 25 May 2004 Dear Sir Re: Bramshott Place and Penally Farm Some time ago you published a readers letter (Jennifer Hamblen 31 October) regarding the issues of footpaths at the above site. The assertions in that letter regarding public access were incorrect as there are presently no footpaths, permissive or prescriptive across the site or the adjacent Penally Farm which is also in our ownership. When the Parish Council met and recommended approval to our plans as part of the consultation process on our planning application to East Hampshire District Council to develop a retirement village the issue of access was raised. We went on record at that Parish Meeting as saying that should we be granted a consent we were prepared to provide permissive links across the land to connect with the existing public footpaths to the east and north and which would be routed so as to respect our future development plans This still remains the case and our planners have developed a proposed footpath network plan and have met recently with Hampshire County Council’s footpath officers to discuss the options. However we continue to be concerned regarding the continuing trespass on this land. Despite the previous owners erecting “keep out” and “no trespassing signs” these have not only been ignored but also vandalised to such an extent that they are shortly to be replaced. There are two main locations of trespass. Firstly at the North Lodge Gate. Our boundary here will shortly be restored. The second location where trespass occurs is on a former pathway parallel with the River Wey Valley from London Road. Walkers are perhaps unaware that the Parish Council relinquished their rights along this permissive path in a Deed as long ago as 1997. This path will shortly be fenced off as part of our security measures to prevent trespass on to what is still a potentially dangerous site. Whilst the former King George Hospital buildings, have in the main been demolished, there are still a number of underground tanks and manholes existing. Additionally the existing Grade II listed Tudor tower structure continues to be vandalised despite our continuing attempts to protect it. Trespassers continue to remove covers from manholes and break through the chain link fencing and the corrugated iron protection to the listed tower. Our objective is not to prevent access to a pleasant valley walk but to prevent access to it over private property. Through your newspaper we would like to draw to the public’s attention what actions we are taking to secure our property. Any people thereafter caught on the site causing trespass or wilful damage will be reported to the authorities for appropriate action to be taken. Yours faithfully Bill Gair 5 July 2004 Dear Sirs Re: Bramshott Place, Liphook Further to our letter to you of 24 May I write to advise you that despite your widely publicised article regarding fencing our legal boundaries, persons as yet unknown are causing damage by removing this fencing. Through your newspaper could we advise your readers that the police have been involved and will take action against people caught interfering with the boundaries. Our local staff will be assisting the police in patrolling these boundaries and we are also happy to offer a £500 reward to anyone giving the police information which leads to a conviction. Yours sincerely. Bill Gair

Re: Old hospital site. - CT (8th Jul 2004  13:36:57) It's a shame that so few people appreciate that Bill Gair and Helical (Liphook) have the community's interests at heart and are not just destroying yet another Greenfield site and its immediate surroundings. They are also providing "affordable" retirement housing and helping to secure a grand lucrative future retirement for themselves. Well done Bill and thanks!

Re: Old hospital site. - LippyChick (14th Jul 2004  21:07:02) Residents please don't despair Far from being NIMBY's, people who are concerned about the development at the old hospital site are not against the work outlined. The issue is that for as many as 40 years the land has been used as a public right of way. No, it wasn't officially called so, but when people enquired of the old health authority whether they were welcomed to walk their dogs in the grounds, they were positively encouraged. These were the people that kept vandalism and damage at bay. People like Jenny Hamblen are not seeking to stop development of this site, but simply to ask that local residents are able to use the footpaths around the site as a right of way. The hospital itself represents a major part of Liphook heritage, and there are families and relatives of soldiers who have an interest in seeing the area. An application has been made to make this a public right of way. I, as have many other walkers of Radford Park have offered our full support, and hopefully there will be able to be some compromise. Keeping Liphook moving forward, as well as showing respect to the past? Surely this is possible

Re: Old hospital site. - CT (15th Jul 2004  20:01:31) My comment was a poor attempt at sarcasm as, in fact, I am against the development. I hope that the rights of way are kept open so that those that wish to enjoy the walks, the scenery and the heritage are able to continue to do so. Like many residents, I have a growing concern about the amount of new development that Liphook is absorbing. With this application succesfully going ahead, one can only assume that other, similar applications will be attempted, hopefully, without success!. We do have to accept progress, if that word can be applied to large residential building projects like this one, but enough is fast becoming enough around here. "Not Interested, My Backyard Is Saturated" may be more appropriate the next time around.

Re: Old hospital site. - LippyChick (16th Jul 2004  06:15:35) Sarcasm appreciated.. ..just thought you might like to know the progress that Jenny has been making. The more support the better the chances of success :)

Re: Old hospital site. - mf (16th Jul 2004  09:03:43) lippychick...... u make the comment "No, it wasn't officially called so" regarding the right of way across the site..... whats ur problem then... u have no right to demand access.. it is'nt an ancient right of way, so if the developer decides he do not want u on his property... he doesnt have to let u. a similar thing happened near me..... there was a cut through (track) between 2 roads.... somebody bought the house adjoining this track... put a big fence in the middle... 2 gates either end.. end of story... it had never been registered as a right of way... just be greatful the developers are reinstating the paths once they've finished STOP MOANING

Re: Old hospital site. - David (17th Jul 2004  11:23:56) I would just like to add that if progress was as simple as building houses, we would surely live in the most progressive and happiest country. Unfortunately progress in this sense usually entails the commercial gain of a few at the expense of everyone else. Absolutely do not be bullied into the threat of prosecution for trespassing, everyone has suddenly become an expert on explaining the law, particularly if it serves their own interests. I would doubt very much if trespassing per se has ever recently resulted in prosecution, the law is more likely to take a far dimmer view with regards to the harassing of people who have roamed for many years through what is in all intents and purposes a disused meadow that meanders into a public park. Lets just reiterate here that profiteering is at the heart of the matter and the slight concession or disguise is that the proposed development is for the elderly. The manner in which this area has been protected has been aggressive and bloody minded. As communication has been poor and no attempt at compromise has been attempted, then it is easy to understand when obstructions to age old walking routes are `removed’….

Re: Old hospital site. - Alex Cameron (19th Jul 2004  15:26:10) David - i'd like to nominate you for the forum's "best made argument" award, for when the editor decides to introduce it. No sarcasm - elegantly and brilliantly put.

Re: Old hospital site. - LippyChick (19th Jul 2004  21:58:12) MF... ...who was moaning? Looking for progress with a nod to the needs of current residents hardly constitutes moaning. Also it might be worth pointing out that at the current time the developers haven't agreed to access...that's exactly what is being asked for. SUrely this is a positive way forward for everyone? What's so very wrong with that?

Re: Old hospital site. - Freddie Dawkins (19th Aug 2004  11:22:49) Bill Gair and his team have erected 4-strand barbed wire fences. These are not necessary to keep any large livestock in - they are there as a threat to residents who want to exercise their common rights to use public footpaths. There is a confusion over the correct boundaries. The Parish Council has been checking all the records and will have a definitive answer soon. I'll let you know when I have the correct boundaries defined. In the meantime - pop into the Parish Office and ask to look at the Rights of Way map. rgds Freddie

Re: Old hospital site. - CT (23rd Aug 2004  18:06:17) Can anything be done to get the barbed wire removed and replaced with something safer? Is this Bill Gair character contactable? This irresponsible and unprofessional company is, I presume, Helical Bar and a list of contact e mail addresses appears on their web site (www.helical.co.uk).

Re: Old hospital site. - Harry Hudson, Green Issues Communications (26th Aug 2004  15:26:07) Cllr Freddie Dawkins comments that the fences are there to prevent residents exercising their common rights to use public footpaths. However, the footpaths in question are not public footpaths and there are no formal rights of way over the land. Indeed, rights to several of these paths within the hospital grounds were given up some time ago by the then Parish Council, long before Helical Bar purchased the site. Helical Bar has been in discussion with the Parish Council about the whole question of footpaths, and has offered valley land to the Parish Council for this purpose. This should help open up and regularise access to the river valley and provide links with existing public footpaths. Before the breaches in the boundaries were made good agreement was reached with Hampshire CC’s footpaths officer on routes which would identify some formalised permissive paths for use in the future and provide linkage with the registered footpath network. Because of vandalism, the existing fences needed to be replaced. As some of the land will be let to a local farmer who will need to control his livestock, it made sense to use barbed wire now. This should pose no threat to anyone going about their lawful business. However, as pointed out previously, not only are parts of the site unsafe, but the listed Tudor tower continues to suffer damage and vandalism. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable for the land owner to prevent unlawful access to what is private land. Obviously, Helical Bar hopes that the situation can be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. The planning application for a productive and valuable contribution to the community has now been with the District Council for 10 months, after an 18 year period since the hospital closed.

Re: Old hospital site. - CT (26th Aug 2004  19:02:30) That's great Mr Hudson, thanks. I'm sure we all feel more supportive and understanding of the situation now.

Re: Old hospital site. - Freddie Dawkins (26th Aug 2004  20:18:11) Harry - as Bill Gair's PR man I'd expect you to say what you have. That's what you are paid for. However, you do know that the boundaries ARE unclear and that's why so much work is being done on checking old maps and also checking regular, established usage. So the footpaths are NOT totally and clearly identified. The heavy-handed approach being used by the developer will not win support in Liphook. Bill Gair's original presentation and demeanour when questioned about the initial plans at the Parish Planning Committee meeting pretty well exposed him and his company for what they are. There was not a smidgin of understanding of local sensitivies or any willingness to listen to primary concerns. One of my concerns at the time of that first meeting - which was also raised very clearly by Evelyn Hope - who is a District Councillor and healthcare professional - was the shortage of qualified medical staff in this area. Any development for retired p[eople naturally means there will be more pressure on local surgeries and carers. The developers you are working for admitted there would be NO medical/care staff of their own. So who's going to find the staff and how can you and Bill Gair promise us that our local services will not be damaged? As to the 4-strand barbed wire fences - well, I'll let people judge for themselves what they think. I wonder which farmer is going to rent from your client and what animals he's proposing to put onto the land? If Bill Gair and his fellow developers cared a jot about this Parish, they'd be talking to and working with us - instead of paying PR companies lots of money to submit half-truths and misleading statements here. Freddie Dawkins

Re: Old hospital site. - Harry Hudson, Green Issues Communications (27th Aug 2004  12:14:50) I am sorry that Cllr Dawkins feels that we are not talking to him and his fellow councillors and trying to work with them: that is exactly what we have been trying to do. Following the concerns he and Cllr Hope raised at the Planning Committee meeting last October, we tried to contact them both. I sent Cllr Dawkins an email via this website on 24 October, asking if he would be willing to talk through these very issues with us. I received no reply. Cllr Hope also did not return my phone calls. However, we were sufficiently concerned about the points they raised on provision of healthcare locally to contact both local surgeries. We met Dr Barbara Rushton, Senior Partner of Newtown Surgery, Liphook, and Mr David Shakeshaft, Practice Manager, who refuted the comments that medical facilities in Liphook were overstretched, and contacted the Liphook Herald to make the same point. We received a similar message from the Ship House Surgery. Further, both said that the proposed retirement village posed no problem as far as they were concerned in terms of healthcare provision locally. Over the past few years, we have made many attempts to meet and consult with local members: the offer still stands. I do not think it is helpful to get into arguments about who is right or wrong, but I think it only fair to point out that there are two sides to this. We know from contacts we have had from elderly people in the village that a retirement village would in fact meet pressing local needs. It would be much easier to identify these needs and address local concerns if the discussion could be carried out in person rather than through the internet.

Re: Old hospital site. - Freddie Dawkins (28th Aug 2004  08:51:29) Harry - It's very easy to arrange a meeting with members of the Planning Committee. You telephone Gina Spencer, Secretary to the Planning Committee, on 01428 722988. Gina will then check dates and arrange the meeting. You've been told this before. Members of all Committees are not allowed to make arrangements for private meetings with developers - for obvious reasons. You know this. On the healthcare issues: I'm limited to what I can say here because of issues of confidentiality - but if any Parishoner would like to call me or speak to me about the problems we face, they are very welcome to call me on 07769 665 963. Eve Hope is contactable on 01428 727567. Freddie

Re: Old hospital site. - Alex Cameron (28th Aug 2004  10:23:51) Lol - go Freddie :) I walk my dog in the park almost every day (helps me to get away from the computer, you know), and have ended up talking to plenty of other people about the fences - whether we are allowed to walk up there was always the conversation-starter. Nobody seems to know whether we can or whether we can't, and despite the hundreds of posters put up on lampposts and trees, Mr Hudson makes it all the more confusing. Have parts of the barbed wire fence been taken down by the company, the council or by 'vandals'? So, a simple point to Mr H - Freddie is speaking out of duty to the public, and you are a PR guy. Why should we believe what you say when your motives appear to be less benevolent than our erstwhile Mr Dawkins?

Re: Old hospital site. - David (14th Sep 2004  20:50:12) Ah...Mr Hudson Please... Just admit you're in it for the money you are not fighting for improved social services and your pseudo benevolence is offensive towards those that are. You are exploiting the system for financial gain, people would have more respect if you or the company you represented stopped dressing this whole thing up as some grand project for our social betterment. You are trying to slip something, anything, past the planners that is remotely palatable and community friendly and bingo `retirement homes' big profit end of story, I just hope that whatever you do the council and public pressure help to minimise those profits by enforcing concessions and restrictions. Build a hospital, a sports centre, a college for adult education and I’ll help you dig the foundations. Liphook or indeed Southern England is not a Monopoly Board hopefully that went out in the Eighties. Let's get rid of the BS and talk and negotiate properly about this issue so that everyone is a little more satisfied.

Re: Old hospital site. - Chris (16th Dec 2004  11:27:00) It seems that this application may have been refused (or so I am led to believe by local newspaper reports). Is this true? Does anybody have any more info? The headline I read was "Retirement village plan rejected".

Post Reply
Talkback Home