Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

Bohunt tactics - liz (13th May 2015 - 09:08:39) We received a card this morning (with a stamp!) which can be sent off in support of 'Green' Village Investment's plans for the Bohunt Development on the South Downs National Park. Presumably they are getting desperate that the application will be refused. Time for those who realise that what will start small will eventually be a huge housing estate on our gateway to the National Park, to redouble their efforts to reject the application. Please don't support this proposal because you think it will be an alternative to development elsewhere - it won't because it is in the National Park and therefore treated separately.

Re: Bohunt tactics - heather (13th May 2015 - 09:43:14) We too received a pack this morning. Hand delivered before 8am. Mentioning how they are working with Kevin McClouds development company on this. He wants his own timber eco houses :/ So they are trying the celebrity card now !

Re: Bohunt tactics - Julie (13th May 2015 - 10:44:16) Well there is obviously a huge amount of profit to be made here so the investors must be circling like vultures. The land holding is vast - not just the piece that has been put forward now. Tories want housing, Bill Mouland Tory district councillor supports the development. Don't be surprised if it isn't Russian or Chinese investors behind it.

Re: Bohunt tactics - barbara (13th May 2015 - 11:50:53) I though the time for comments from the public had long since passed?

Re: Bohunt tactics - liz (13th May 2015 - 13:55:50) Is that the same Bill Mouland who used to write unflattering things about Liphook in the Daily Wail?

Re: Bohunt tactics - g renouf (13th May 2015 - 17:35:02) not recieved in portsmouth road!

Re: Bohunt tactics - S (13th May 2015 - 20:40:23) Since they so kindly included a 1st class stamp, I would suggest that we make good use of it. Stick a bit of paper over the top of their suggested checklist and tell them exactly what you think of developing on top of the National Park. I am all for zero-carbon homes, but why not build these on one of the other numerous developments already suggested that are not in the SDNPA.

Re: Bohunt tactics - Diane (13th May 2015 - 22:02:01) I simply put a big black cross on the card ,wrote a big black NO put my name and address and sent it off. I did think about steaming the stamp off for future use.

Re: Bohunt tactics - Villager (16th May 2015 - 11:05:07) Does the village not need more affordable housing, better community facilities and all the things that this development would bring? Is there any other proposal deemed acceptable by the masses that can offer this? Maybe I'm missing something but surely this proposal offers more to the village than the tiny pockets of land that are being developed with houses squeezed into every available nook and cranny, that provide small houses at huge price tags. I'm yet to be convinced that the Bohunt plan is bad for the village, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Re: Bohunt tactics - Ann (16th May 2015 - 20:53:23) Villager, no you are not the only one. I totally agree with your post. At least they are offering something. It is my understanding that they are only providing the land for facilities like the football pitch. If LUFC can't raise the funds required in a specific timescale the land reverts to the owners. Please do not get taken in by their clever marketing speak. At the end of the day they want to build as many houses as they can on the South Downs National Park.

Re: Bohunt tactics - Kenny B. (16th May 2015 - 21:44:35) I am with the editor on this. It is 'smoke and mirrors' to dress up a pig of a plan with lipstick. Show us the village infrastructure improvements and how all these benefits will materialize and then folks might get more positive about the development.

Re: Bohunt tactics - A. Ryan (16th May 2015 - 23:53:42) Editor , I think you have made your ideas plain , please keep them that, your ideas . A lot of the village are for this development , Have you not looked at the planning, there was always going to be Kevin McClouds developments there so why are you saying they are playing the celebrity card now?

Re: Bohunt tactics - Ian (17th May 2015 - 09:01:05) A.ryan you have been very prominent in your support of this proposal. Please do not object to others including the editor of our right to disagree with you. It is almost impossible to quantify the local support for this contentious proposal and it shows a high degree of spin and arrogance by those such as yourself that keep spouting there is considerable support for it, there is not

Re: Bohunt tactics - ellie (17th May 2015 - 09:49:06) I am afraid planning applications are all to do with money. Remember when permission was granted for the sports facilities? The whole site was sold the next day, from Geriwell Investments to GVI fronted by a lichtenstein trust. Do you imagine that the promised facilities will occur? of course not. The owners have always said, that will have to be paid for by others. As soon as the current owners get their money they will be back to South Africa in a twinkling. There will be different owners and different designs and a different layout, it will become 100 percent for profit. There can be no conditions laid down about who designs the houses. Anyway, having looked at his designs for Bohunt, they look like army style barrack housing. Give me the National Park there any day! They can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time!

Re: Bohunt tactics - Fred (17th May 2015 - 11:32:05) Ed, there is NOT a clause stating it goes back in the hands of the developers if funds are not raised within a timscale. Once it is handed over it will be owned solely by LUFC. It is a gift, and a gift that is needed if we are to keep football within our village. Please only put truthful facts on here if you are to get involved in a debate. Fred, please confirm the exact document that you have actually seen from the developers that now states that the land is an outright gift to LUFC. I am not aware that it exists but would love to see it.

Re: Bohunt tactics - ellie (17th May 2015 - 12:17:44) I am also aware that some of the support for Bohunt comes from fear, fear that if it is not supported then the areas around Chiltley Lane and The "Berg Estate" will be built on instead. This is a fallacy, as we have a five year land supply within the settlement boundary, so new areas do not need to be found to make up the numbers that way. Also the housing market itself has a great effect, there could be a few interest rate rises later in the year, then no one will want to take out a mortgage!

Re: Bohunt tactics - jen (17th May 2015 - 12:24:15) Fred How can you know all this I suspect that you are part of GVI

Re: Bohunt tactics - Fred (17th May 2015 - 13:24:23) jen, Thats brilliant, because i can read, and have read all the documents that means i must be part of GVI !!! I wish others would take the time to get all the facts correct. If you knew anything about sport within our village or went to council meetings you would know exactly who i am, and know i am no part of GVI.

Re: Bohunt tactics - Inked M (17th May 2015 - 16:55:18) What really gets me with all of the people that dont want any development of any kind always go on about how its been this way for years etc etc..Well the world is a bigger place and is ever expanding and we are in major need of new facilities for our area. What happens when all of these older people who keep rejecting things pass away in 10 years, all developers move elsewhere and provide facilities for other places and we once again have nothing. You had your time and now its time for a new generation to enjoy a newer bigger better Liphook.

Re: Bohunt tactics - Ax (17th May 2015 - 21:07:41) I think the people objecting are actually a little bit selfish. It is fine for those who own there houses and are being given these opinion cards to reject them. What about the hundreds(thousands) of 18-30 year old's who would like to remain in the area they have grown up in, the area they work in, the are there lives are based, but for who there is NO affordable housing, no housing at all. I haven't heard one legitimate reason against this development. Liphook will be the gateway to the national park, The Park will still be there. Liphook will still be the boundary to the park there will be some fantastic views on the edge of this development. How about the people complaining stop having selfish reasons for doing so and look at the positives this development, and how it can help the people of the village. And for the record, I do NOT have any relationship with GVI, and in no way will directly benefit from this development. A scarily neutral view, that is only swayed by the painful negativity that is forever prevalent on this site!

Re: Bohunt tactics - A. Ryan (17th May 2015 - 21:24:18) Ian, Yes, I have been vocal in my support for this development, as I firmly believe it will be good for Liphook. My family have been lucky enough to have been here for generations, my great grandmother having one of the first houses built along the Haslemere Road. I have no problem in accepting the government have to have more housing built, as people have to live somewhere. What I find strange is the sheer dislike for this development by a few people and I cannot understand why. This land is certainly nothing special, and as I have already said I lived opposite there in the late 70's, It has been arable land for years. I could understand it if you lived along the Portsmouth Road but the people who have opposed it seem to be further away. The argument that it is the gateway to the National Park seems incredibly flimsy to me, with such beautiful countryside around us there are better gateways. Yes there are some lovely trees there and one hopes the best would be saved, and having had a look on the planning application I think they are trying to do that. I certainly would not support this if I thought it would harm Liphook, and the arguments that I have so far seen do not stand up. And no I do not work for the developer, and I have no ulterior motives, people need houses and I feel that the I'm alright Jack attitude is very selfish. What is any town ,village, city for? It is for people to live and work in. Basically it looks to me that more documents have been put up on the application so the SOB brigade are upping the ante. Also I found this in the document called Planning Statement, about the football club under community facilities, one would assume that this means LUFC get the land quid pro quo. [ The football pitches will be transferred for nil consideration to Liphook United Football Club at such time as road and service infrastructure has been provided up to the boundary (the Football Club will, however, be obliged to contribute pro-rata for maintenance of roads and services). Thereafter, the Football Club will be responsible for laying out the pitches and constructing the pavilion together with the provision of landscaping. The form of Transfer of the football pitches will be annexed to the Section 106 Agreement.] This debate pro verses opp just keeps going round in circles whilst there are families out there that need housing. And just to say where I live we have our troubles too, I was punched in the face by a neighbour of mine last night , a gentleman of the road who was not very gentle. But that is another story.

Re: Bohunt tactics - Ian (17th May 2015 - 22:01:47) Missing the point A.Ryan, yes you are entitled to your opinion but others are also entitled to theirs and just because you don't understand why others do not want this development really does not alter the fact that they are entitled to voice their objection.

Re: Bohunt tactics - GM (17th May 2015 - 22:05:43) Ax I commend your open, frank, and honest look at the current situation, not just locally but at a national level. A. Ryan, I completely agree with your points. It's also good to see another person capable of reading the message landing documents, and not just relying on rumour to form their opinion! Careful though, when I quoted the planning documents previously, I was accused of being a gvi rep! ;-) Just to add, what GVI are doing isn't anything new, underhand, or deperate. Quite often developers will do this or similiar to raise awareness of the site in question.

Re: Bohunt tactics - A. Ryan (17th May 2015 - 22:40:39) Ian , I have absoultely no problem to anybody objecting, we all have a choice, but please enlighten me as to why you are opposed , I want to understand both sides. all I am saying is I am not convinced by your arguments . And no I was not missing the point, I was putting mine across.

Re: Bohunt tactics - ellie (17th May 2015 - 23:09:13) GVI will not be becoming social housing landlords. If permission is granted, and if the affordable housing is built, there is no guarentee that the landlords ( either Radion or Drum Housing, or similar) would rent their houses to purely local people. It is a fallacy, I believe that there is a points system and it is based on percieved need? So the affordable houses at bohunt could be rented to people not from this area at all? It is just clever advertising if Bohunt Manor claim any differently. I still contend that some support comes from people in Chiltley Lane and the Berg as they think it will take pressure off building in fheir area.

Re: Bohunt tactics - S (18th May 2015 - 01:29:52) As an 18-30 who would quite like to get on the local housing ladder, I do not think it is selfish to object to this development. It's ridiculous to suggest that because someone already owns a house here, their objection to this development must be an 'I'm alright Jack', 'Not In My Back Yard' opinion. Liphook is the gateway to the National Park, yes, but the proposed development is on land that actually lies WITHIN the SDNP. What is the point in designating protected areas if we then proceed to build on them anyway? It is a waste of money. So much time / money / energy went into designating the National Park and forming the SDNPA, essentially creating a whole new layer of planning legislation to pass before such developments can take place. The National Park was designated for a reason and I actually think it's selfish to suggest building on a protected area, a greenfield site, when there are brownfield sites that should be developed first, but since it is more expensive you will not see that happening! There is so much history surrounding the Bohunt estate, and the place has such natural beauty. It's unbelievable that it has been sold off for development, and having bequeathed the place to the WWF, I bet Lady Holman is turning in her grave. I have read the planning documents and the plans do sound very idyllic... I don't object to development in general, it's obvious that it has to happen somewhere, I just do not think this is the place. Why not build on land that can be improved by the creation of zero carbon housing, community orchards etc. etc... Rather than taking a piece of virgin land and pretending it's somehow 'sustainable', 'environmentally friendly' to plonk 140 houses on top of it. Of course it sounds like an appealing development, they've pulled out all the stops as they know it's going to be a tough sell to build on this land. Just remember that ultimately it's a money making scheme and the best interests of Liphook are not their priority. All planning documents (for or against) should be read with a healthy dose of scepticism.

Re: Bohunt tactics - Vanessa Flowers (18th May 2015 - 06:10:03) Ax, there is nothing negative about any opinion that opposes this building threat. The SDNP only has so much housing land to offer and such a large single development concentrated in one area along with those just allowed in Petersfield will also deprive other small villages within the boundary of the park from having much needed small developments of 10 houses or so. I know this because I bothered to contact the SDNP authority to ask them. They cannot comment on individual applications but they do offer insight into the general rules. GM and A Ryan, you are entitled to your opinion and those against are entitled to theirs. And GM, your arrogance at believing you are the only one that reads the planning documentation is breathtaking. Liphook has fulfilled its quota with the EHDC applications that are in the pipeline. There are a lot of people around who want to protect their areas, the Berg estate and the areas affected by the Lowseley farm building being just two. Nothing wrong with that but we should not tolerate an EHDC housing pipeline PLUS the extra housing at Bohunt. It will be too much.. It is Staggering to think that a few people are still being taken in by the promise of gifts to the community by GVI.

Re: Bohunt tactics - Julie (18th May 2015 - 07:13:06) Tactics? I also contacted the SDNPA and was told that they will still accept comments sent in by post. That is why the developers are trying to increase the numbers of supporters by delivering SAEs. Desperate times indeed. Support Royal Mail, don't waste those stamps, and send in your objections - it works both ways!

Re: Bohunt tactics - ian (18th May 2015 - 10:16:19) A.Ryan Firstly, this development is not disliked by just a few people, there is considerable unease locally about this and other proposed developments in Liphook. Personally as a Liphook resident I think that with the houses that are being built by Wimpey by the Millennium Green, the 129 homes that are just about to be built on Silent Garden and the houses consented to be built at Lowsley Farm, Liphook has, for the foreseeable future done its bit to provide additional housing stock. I also think the focus on so called benefits that any further new homes schemes will bring to Liphook is misleading. Local government will benefit as they will be able to say they have hit their targets for new homes being built in EHDC and the developers will benefit as they will make lots of profit. The people of Liphook will not benefit. Prices will be too high for those wanting to get on the property ladder and the allocation for key workers etc. will be minimal. For those who promote the social argument for more affordable housing you would be better off lobbying EHDC for a new council house estate in the village!! GVI are only interested in profit, they are not interested in making Liphook a better place to live, they are divisive and manipulative, I also think that their progressive vandalism of the land fronting the Portsmouth Road over the last few years is criminal. The only reason we would need additional facilities like Doctors surgeries, schools etc is if there is a population explosion in Liphook. The only reason there will be a population explosion in Liphook is if additional development such as this is consented. Yes more houses are needed across the south east and Liphook has done its bit already, we do not need to do anymore. Also as many contributors have said, even if we get the new houses it is unlikely we will ever see the new infrastructure.

Re: Bohunt tactics - A. Ryan (18th May 2015 - 13:21:27) Ian, You are right when you say a lot of people dislike this development, but far more actually think it is a good idea. Luckily we live in a democracy so we can all have our say. Building council houses would be a wonderful idea, but one that will not happen easily ,as Mrs Thatcher really laid that to rest . To say we have done our bit in Liphook implies we batten down the hatches, and let no one else in, do we have that right? We are not some little hamlet out in the sticks, to which there are many beautiful ones ( I would love to afford to live in one ) Liphook has been growing steadily for a very long time. If you look at all the villages and towns on any train route you will see how all have expanded. Populations grow in areas that are accessible, it is the way of the world. Maybe it's a curse of living in a village with a station and a trunk road. I would have loved Liphook to have stayed the same as it was when I played in the rec fifty odd years ago but it can't. and it wont. The way I see it we should have our say and decide the best way of having new housing here, so it blends well in the village, as we have got it so badly wrong over the years. I am sure any developer is out to make money, so do you know this one personally to single them out? If you do perhaps let me know so I have all the facts. I am sure you go to work to be paid and don't do it out of the kindness of you heart. Any way enough said as it just goes round in circles.

Re: Bohunt tactics - Dawn Hoskins (18th May 2015 - 13:30:08) It is just a matter of doing the maths. We are already getting, whether you like it or not, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of new houses in estates across Liphook. These have already been given approval by E.H.D.C. The reason we MUST have these is that E.H.D.C. has a quota imposed on them every decade or so - which they are duty bound to fill. Outside of the E.H.D.C / Government quota which is already going to change the face of Liphook as we know it - there are no other estates which we MUST HAVE hoisted upon us. We can choose to have the Bohunt Estate, but we don't have to have it. In the face of the many new housing estates that will be springing up, I chose to say 'enough is enough'. There is no need to voluntary chose to accept another few hundred houses if we are not being forced to. No brainer

Re: Bohunt tactics - Ian (18th May 2015 - 13:52:46) A.Ryan you are wrong and unless you have personally canvassed every household in Liphook how can you be so confident it has majority support...you cannot (and I agree I cannot absolutely be sure there is majority against and as last weeks election shows spin is often incorrect). However following your logic, Yes Liphook has grown but when do you think it is appropriate for the development to stop? Population growth will always place demands on housing resources so should we just roll over and agree that development growth should be infinite and see Liphook eventually merge with Liss, Lindford and Bordon and Haslemere?. And the reason I've singled out GVI is that in my opinion they are particularly cynical in their actions, this is not based on knowing them, it is based on their behaviour. You are free to support them as others a free to judge them on their vandalism of this land and their manipulative games and spin. And my final contribution to this matter please stop demanding justification from posters that simply have a different point of view to you, it is extremely arrogant, just accept your argument is not necessarily correct or the majority view, despite your vigorous support for GVI

Re: Bohunt tactics - liz (18th May 2015 - 14:10:52) A.Ryan You cannot say more people favour the Bohunt idea anymore than I can say the opposite. You (or I) really don't know. Thanks for the geogrpahy lesson, I think most people are aware of the situation. As for developers not interested in making money - you must be very naive if you think that's likely. Anyway the clue is in the name Green Village Investments. I have no objection to anyone making money but in this case I think we have to take a step back and look at exactly what we lose.

Re: Bohunt tactics - A. Ryan (18th May 2015 - 16:02:26) Liz, I suggest you go back and read my post again I quote " I am sure any developer is out to make money," I am hardly naive!!

Re: Bohunt tactics - GM (18th May 2015 - 16:08:32) This thread is very quickly descending into the same arguments as previous ones. Vanessa - Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I'm not being arrogant at all, based on previous comments I've made about this development, and the responses I've had in return, show that not many people do read them. So it's not arrogance, it's fact! What I do take issue with is those who object yet without either a sound reason, or on the basis of what their friend told them for example. Everyone, there is always a for and against for every development, one way or another. And believe me, in my line of work I've seen some ridiculous arguments both for and against building some sites. This particular one is contentious either way. But to say the developer is this or that, or have conspiracy theories about their plans is crazy! Planning docs are there for a reason, they form part of the application. If they then change then veer from those when work commences, they are at yhe mercy of the planning authority and building control amongst others. Ellie, you're part right about the points syste. However yhe applicants also need to have a "local connection" to the area. So it's unlikely that they'll go to people coming from other areas unless s they have family in the parish.

Re: Bohunt tactics - Supporter (18th May 2015 - 18:20:11) I tend not to voice my support on this platform to avoid the drama personally but having downloaded the full information pack, proposed plans and layouts we are very interested in building a home and living in this development.

Re: Bohunt tactics - Objector (18th May 2015 - 19:02:53) Having looked at the documents concerned and also the availability of other new homes that will be coming to Liphook I certainly feel these additional homes are not needed and Should not be built in The National Park

Re: Bohunt tactics - Karina (18th May 2015 - 19:49:24) I am very suprrised that the development on the Bohunt Manor site is still being discussed. It surely must have been rejected once and for all as it is planned to be sited on the South Downs National Park land. If the SDNP gets to be built on, it sets a precedent, puts all National Parks at risk and makes a mockery of having such protected areas of natural beauty. Is there no legal protection of the Park? What is the Department of Environment doing about it? I hope our newly elected representatines will get down to the business of throwing this proposal out and look for other avalable alternatives.

Re: Bohunt tactics - Penny Okane (18th May 2015 - 22:14:19) Objector and Karina You may not have noticed, but the South Downs National Park announced recently that they would be searching for 4,400 new houses to be built in the Park. If this is to be the case, best that the houses are built in locations which have mainline stations nearby. It seems that this development does give something back to us, which certainly the other ones at Lowsley Farm and Chiltley Lane never did, so it gets my support. I have looked at the Planning Statement for this development, which A Ryan advised, and it does explain what is going to be gifted and agree with Supporter that it looks like a good scheme.

Re: Bohunt tactics - ellie (19th May 2015 - 00:24:03) I have looked into the figure the park needs, this figure is for the whole of the National Park until 2030. This means that given the amount of new houses already agreed for Lewes Petersfield, Midhurst, Newhaven, chichester etc, the really big conurbations within the Park, not that many need to be found eleswhere. In their development brief for Liphook. they have rejected all sites put forward for the Liphook SDNPA area, and have accepted one in Liss. liss I believe is totally within the Park. It does not mean they will be in a rush to build them all this year, or all in Liphook. They will build within settlement policy boundaries where there is already a built up settlement totally within the Park.

Re: Bohunt tactics - Penny Okane (19th May 2015 - 08:43:43) Ellie you may know more about this than I do but was only mentioning a figure from the Petersfield Post and the point is that they do support building houses in the Park The other point is that the information we received through post says, quote: 'the local GPs and LUFC (the football club) have been searching for a new site in the village for nearly fifteen years but without success' So if this is the case where else could the football club or the GPs get new premises in the village if not at Bohunt Manor Perhaps the club and the doctors could respond to this question.

Re: Bohunt tactics - liz (19th May 2015 - 09:25:40) As far as I'm aware there is no funding available for new GP's premises (even assuming they're not quite happy where they are!) There is also no funding for football facilites although no doubt that could be raised. That said, it seems a bit much for our corner of the National Park to be turned into a major housing development just for the sake of a football pitch. If it was just the football facilites that would be fine - but that's not likely to happen.

Re: Bohunt tactics - Penny Okane (19th May 2015 - 10:00:04) Liz, interesting point, but the planning statement, which A. Ryan directed us to, shows that the developer will legally commit to building the new healthcare centre and that the GPs will be tenants so there is no backing out of that assuming the doctors want the building, which I understand they do. I think that it would be better to let the football club speak for themselves regarding the funding. I also see that providing the football club with these grounds is a major priority for the parish council. As I say, at least we, the villagers, get something out of this, which was certainly not the case with the other proposals. I have also looked at the website and there are about 500 supporters registered for the Bohunt Manor application. It would, however, be nice to hear directly from the doctors and the footballers though. Penny, I think you'll find that although the developer will build the shell, they will not provide any internal fittings. It is currently believed that there is no funding available to kit out a new surgery. It is therefore very unlikely that the 2 existing local surgeries would ever combine in the building, and hence the developer would have the right to apply for change of use. Again, unless I've missed something, LUFC must produce the funding for pitches / facilities and road in a specified timescale otherwise the land reverts to the developer. Can SOS Bohunt Manor confirm this please.

Re: Bohunt tactics - ellie (19th May 2015 - 10:20:57) I was at a meeting open to the public at Midhurst, when the housing figures were announced. They are for the whole of the Park, the figure is until 2030, and have nearly been filled already. Do not forget how vast the NP area is. With regard to the surgery, one surgery wishes to move, the Newtown Road surgery, but there are business sites available. Do not think in terms of greenfield sites for this, just because Bohunt Manor thought it would be the carrot to dangle for lIphook. The PP for the building was granted years ago. Funding for the surgery would only come if and only if the houses gained permission there,. The SDNPA know this. The football plans to me do not appear realistic, I believe the car park only has enough space for a few cars, cannot remember exactly, but not enough spaces. The Football club also have to fund all the roads and facilities themselves forever more. Unless they get very wealthy backers into infinity I cannot see this as affordable for them.

Re: Bohunt tactics - Penny Okane (19th May 2015 - 10:30:13) Thanks Ed I looked at the planning statement on the website again, and it says clearly that GVI will be responsible for the fit out the healthcare centre. There are so many documents on the website, it is an absolute maze to find this information, but this info is available at Appendix A I still really think that the footballers and doctors should have something to say here though

Re: Bohunt tactics - Penny Okane (19th May 2015 - 10:33:23) Ellie sorry just missed yours.... you are not correct about the football club having to do roads etc ... this is also shown at Appendix A. I think that it is worth looking through all these documents as it is quite complex.

Re: Bohunt tactics - ellie (19th May 2015 - 14:22:35) I do not think work on the surgery would begin unless they had tenants, it does not have to be exsisting doctors in Liphook surely any practice anywhere could move in if they had the correct funding? I agree it would be good if the doctors came on here and said whether they do wish to rent the building. I personally think doctors surgeries buy premises outright funded by a pension mortgage, as it becomes an asset they can then convert into cash when they retire, and another partner buys into the practice.

Re: Bohunt tactics - Penny Okane (19th May 2015 - 15:32:55) Ellie I understand that this looks confusing, but looking into it further and GOOGLING the matter, this is definitely a binding obligation on GVI to build the healthcare centre. There is no doubt about it and it is called a Section 106 Legal Agreement, which means that the whole development is linked to the building of the healthcare centre and the gifting of the land to LUFC It is unequivocal, and leaves the community in no doubt that these developers will have to do exactly what they say they will do. In other words it protects us and ensures that we get what we have been promised. This sounds great to me and for this reason, I am happy to add my support to the scheme. I also think it is a good scheme. Earlier and slightly above our current entries on this thread, Fred stated that the land at Bohunt Manor was to be gifted to LUFC by GVI. Fred presumably is in a position to know, however this is also set out in the Section 106 Legal Agreement Appendix A. I think that you may have been confused on the road issue - you said that the club would have to build all the roads, which no doubt would be prohibitively expensive and completely rule out LUFC's relocation to Bohunt Manor. In fact the agreement says that LUFC would be responsible for pro-rata maintenance costs of the roads. This is quite different from having to pay for the costs of constructing the roads and probably an equitable arrangement. As far as the doctors owning the healthcare centre is concerned, my understanding from this and other threads is that the doctors (or the NHS) DO NOT have the money to build the healthcare centre. This offer from GVI obviously circumvents the financial constraints of the NHS and the local doctors. The information we received in the post from GVI says that the 140 houses they propose to build at Bohunt Manor will effectively SUBSIDISE the building of the healthcare facility which the doctors will then rent. This is a very relevant statement, as to my mind, everything pivots around this single point. This seems a fair deal for the community to me if I have interpreted it correctly. I still say that we should hear all this directly from the local doctors and LUFC. Can anyone contact these two groups for a statement please Overall, if I am correct in my interpretations: 1. the Park does allow housing development 2. the Lowsley Farm and Chiltley Lane applications did not offer anything for the village other than yet more housing (this is exactly what the information pack from GVI says) 3. the development of housing at Bohunt Manor will subsidise a number of facilities for the community (they mention healthcare centre, grounds for LUFC, a new public park, a nature reserve and allotments) 4. they also mention an unmet housing requirement/quota of 175 units for Liphook - their words, which they will use creatively to deliver community facilities by cross-subsidy - again their words on their information leaflet. We should not look a gift horse in the mouth. This seems a good offer. Remember Lowsley Farm got permission for 155 houses but offered us nothing. To add insult to injury, the landowner at Lowsley Fram then went on to apply for an ADDITIONAL 175 houses, so 330 houses in all, but still offered the village no facilities such as a new healthcare centre or new grounds for LUFC. Thankfully the Lowsley group's application was refused though the GVI leaflet warns us that they may appeal against that refusal. I understand that the new development at Silent Garden, right next door to Bohunt Manor was recently consented and ids now underway. However this project, for something like 135 houses, also is giving nothing to Liphook. They could have easily built a new healthcare centre there, but chose to build only housing with nothing for the community whatsoever. The Bohunt Manor proposal is miles better and we get something back in return.

Re: Bohunt tactics - liz (19th May 2015 - 16:16:47) If you build something and then let it out how much are you actually giving to the community - and how much does the community benefit? Not much I would suggest. Yes there is an opportunity cost of utilising land on which you could potentially make far more profit than building a health centre to lease - but then that is a small costs to set against the potential profits from such a large scale development. I think the benefits - a health centre (for lease) and space for a football pitch (not any build costs) do not outweigh the negative impact of this land being developed.

Re: Bohunt tactics - Val (19th May 2015 - 16:49:24) Penny your latest post is the best post on this Thread so far. You have obviously done a great deal of research and your points are well balanced and carefully thought out. You are absolutely correct when you say that no other developer in Liphook has offered anything to the community, so perhaps it would be more beneficial for people to stop "picking holes" in everything that GVI are offering and instead start negotiating and you never know Liphook might end up getting more facilities. All developers want to make money as does everyone else who works – how else would the world go round?

Re: Bohunt tactics - Penny Okane (19th May 2015 - 16:58:47) liz I understand your dilemma However because we are told that there is a requirement for 175 houses in Liphook, these have to be built somewhere. This is not something we have asked for, it is something that has been foisted on us by central government. There is no getting away from the fact that space for 175 houses has to be found somewhere in Liphook. If it does not happen at Bohunt Manor, it will happen at Lowsley Farm, also a greenfield site. But.... and it is a big but, there will be no new healthcare centre nor football grounds (or anything else) for us You bring up that old chestnut, profit. Please lets not go there, unless you would like a completely different society, but the general election has already been held and our society is firmly rooted in Capitalist ideals which, like it or not, accounts for the astoundingly high standard of living we all enjoy - but pleeeese lets not go there (save it for another thread)! My family uses the Village Surgery which, you guessed it, is LEASED by the doctors, so this does happen, and apparently is very common practice. But to get back to your point.....'If you build something and then let is out how much are you actually giving to the community...' I think the point to your point, assuming that the new healthcare centre is needed, can be found in GVI information leaflet which says....' the GPs (and LUFC) have been searching for a new site in the village for nearly fifteen years, but without success...' This means that, other than Bohunt Manor, there are no other locations for the (presumably) needed new healthcare centre anywhere in Liphook. Add to this the fact that GVI claims that it will subsidise the building of the new healthcare centre (and other community facilities) from the development of Bohunt Manor, this implies that there are no public funds available to build these facilities....very worrying I know, but we are all being squeezed. So what to do.... Cut off our noses to spite our faces and put the housing at Lowsley Farm... We then end up with lots of houses in the village but nothing else, but still, presumably, in need of a new healthcare centre. Please could someone get the opinion of the doctors on this. Penny, just to confirm any houses on Bohunt with be in ADDITION to those at Lowsley Farm etc. EHDC has a requirement to fulfil which does not and will not count any in the SDNP.

Re: Bohunt tactics - liz (19th May 2015 - 17:02:42) Val ALL developers have to contribute towards the community. Also people are not 'nit picking' just because they don't agree with you!

Re: Bohunt tactics - Penny Okane (19th May 2015 - 17:32:10) Liz Yes it is true that all developers have to CONTRIBUTE towards community goodies, but they clearly have not been able to provide land for the healthcare centre, for instance. This land cannot simply be conjured up. In this instance, it appears that Bohunt Manor land is the only land available in the whole village for a healthcare centre and there are no other sites available....unless someone could advise otherwise. Ditto LUFC I say this, because it appears that the doctors and LUFC have been looking for land for a new healthcare centre for nearly fifteen years but have not been able to find any in all that time, unless GVI are misleading us on this point. Please doctors and footballers respond.

Re: Bohunt tactics - Val (19th May 2015 - 17:42:37) Liz I know that all developers have to contribute money but GVI are offering facilities and land over and above this. Editor I know that any houses built on Bohunt Land is over and above anything that is built in Liphook outside the SDNP and that houses built on SDNP land do not effect the quotas for houses outside it - they are two separate planning authorities - and I am sure Penny does too. It has been emphasised on this site "ad nauseam".

Re: Bohunt tactics - Penny Okane (19th May 2015 - 17:46:25) Ed sorry just seen yours It appears that houses at Bohunt Manor WOULD count towards the EHDC 175 house requirement. ....have a look at document Bohunt Park -Final Opinion 27th April 2015. This explains that if the 140 houses at Bohunt Manor were to be consented, there would only be an outstanding requirement for 35 houses in the village. This is my understanding, but all these documents make fascinating reading.

Re: Bohunt tactics - GM (19th May 2015 - 20:05:52) Hi Penny, Is that document on the sdnp planning application? I was on there earlier but didn't spot it, probably just my tired eyes!

Re: Bohunt tactics - ellie (19th May 2015 - 23:59:46) Do not forget that all the application documents are the developer's subjective opinions. The 106 agreements are drawn up / negotioed by the deciding planning authority, they may decide to put their own terms to a 106 agreement. The deciding authority are the SDNP they may decide to have it called in by the secretary of state to decide at that level. It would certainly be looked at by the overiding National Park Authority elsewhere, a housing estate of that size. If you consider that the Silent Garden estate has had permission for yesrs but not built on, purely because they could not afford the 106 agreement, I believe they have now re negotiated that so that the amount of money is less I believe. Sometimes the 106 agreements take a year to agree.

Re: Bohunt tactics - liz (20th May 2015 - 09:30:59) Penny Any houses built at Bohunt will not count towards the quota and will have no impact on whether or not the Lowsley development is expanded. GVI would of course like us to believe that this is the case as it is divisive. Look how they have used the proposed chicken farm development to gain support from people who previously had no interest in the matter. I am not against people making money, as I actually said in my post. I am quite "happy to go there" as I work in finance. So I was quite amused to be told we live in a capitalist society! Also I have nothing against leasing that was not my point. Let's put it this way, I am sure that whoever the GP's lease from have not made a big song and dance about 'providing facilities for the community'! There has been land available for the healthcare centre previously but no funding. This is still the case as far as I am aware. The football field is admittedly an issue at present but as I have said before that I believe we lose too much just to gain space for a football field. Please do not take everything developers say as Gospel. When Sainsbury's was built the company promised not to sell electrical goods and compete with local retailers. They subsequently ignored this as only a 'gentleman's agreement'.

Re: Bohunt tactics - Worried (20th May 2015 - 12:58:42) What will happen to the recreation ground if the football club moves? Will the council be tempted to sell on to developers, even more new homes to benefit the village!!

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home