Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

Housing update - John D (8th Jul 2015 - 07:53:13) Can anyone tell me where we are up to with consented development in Liphook as very confusing Thanks John

Re: Housing update - dawn (8th Jul 2015 - 08:49:32) Do you mean permissions to build houses that have already been granted (but not yet built) or the Government figure imposed within the boundary?

Re: Housing update - Anon (8th Jul 2015 - 10:34:21) Maple Park - current and looks as if nearing completion Silent Garden - Ground work started, 129 properties and about 18 months - 2 years of building, agents say looking to release first houses for sale late summer Lowsley Farm - About 100 agreed, further application in for more - I suspect build will start 2017 Kebbel Homes, Longmoor Road - building of 11 homes started, developer states will probably release to market early next year. All others at very early stage or speculation or rumour

Re: Housing update - Dawn Hoskins (8th Jul 2015 - 11:00:58) The adopted Joint Core Strategy JCS (below) is an interesting read. In a nutshell - Liphook should be designated as a District Centre, with main and bulk convenience food shopping and a reasonable range of comparison shopping and other services. The settlement boundary is set and any development within the boundary of that red line is automatically looked on favourably. JCS states that in addition to the building schemes already ‘given the go ahead’ INSIDE THE BOUNDARY Liphook must build a further (minimum) of 175 houses. JCS Policy CP10 says that building houses within the South Downs National Park will NOT be counted for meeting general housing targets – but the SDNP could allow building separately to ‘serve its community’ if it wished. This is NOT an “'either/or”' situation. If the SDNP Bohunt housing goes ahead it will be a 'housing' PLUS 'more housing' situation (we will still have to have the extra 175 on top). If you look at page 14 of EHDC “Liphook Sustainable Future” You see a helpful map with the sites marked in blue. Between the sites that have permission or are at appeal [Sainsbury’s (OSU) Lowsley Farm Pope field Chiltlee farm Northcott Silent garden Bramshott Place Canada Way - list goes on] there are about 650 ‘or so’ houses in the village - whoops I should now call that the “District Centre”. So you need to add 175 ‘or so’ to that for the extra houses INSIDE THE BOUNDARY brings the number up to around 850 ‘or so’ . The ‘or so’ is added because once permission is given you can 100% guarantee the developer will seek to double it! If Bohunt SDNP goes ahead that has to be added on (to make about 1,050 ‘or so’) as this does not count towards the required extra being imposed upon us. My personal view is that every part of the country needs housing, particularly here in the South. There is a chronic shortage of homes in this area. HOWEVER what the permission givers have failed to address is that the historic (chaotic) road traffic layout that runs through the heart of the village, whoops, District Centre, is ‘mini-roundabout madness’ and is already incapable of processing peak traffic. None of the approved developments provide an answer to this and will ALL exacerbate the problem. Every house will come with cars – TWO as a rule but more if older children live at home (we currently have 6 cars at ours!). Most of the car drivers will be commuting to work using the A3 - straight through ‘mini-roundabout madness’ which is choked up in all directions. The homes (if they have them at all) have the set 1950’s regulation sized garages which are not big enough to park a modern car in (unless entering & exiting through the sunroof) with (if they have them at all) driveways for ONE car. So 1 parked within the curtilage and the rest on the road. BTW - the roads servicing the various developments adhere to MINIMUM width statutes so – big enough for a fire engine ONLY IF there are NO PARKED CARS in the road. Is it just me or is that stupid? I'm not trying to be all doom and gloom – we DO need houses here, but the limited view of the planners seriously does my nut in! WHY can't they join the dots; think in a joined-up way looking at ALL the implications????? Give us roads that are wide enough for 2-way traffic, driveways long enough to park additional cars on, garages big enough to put a car in and to this for houses that don't have to drive through the centre.I know, if wishes were horses then beggars would ride. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The adopted Joint Core Strategy can be found below here: www.easthants.gov.uk/sites/... And the EHDC ‘Liphook Sustainable Future’ can be found below, although it should be noted that the LIPS consultation process was seriously flawed. Based on a sticker system where ringers were bringing in their own stickers and large amounts of people (not local) turned up to sticker the SDNP site – however it is helpful in other areas. It is here: Liphook Sustainable Future - Local Interim Planning Statement (August 2014)

Re: Housing update - John D (8th Jul 2015 - 14:02:18) Wow! Thanks, Dawn - certainly a massive boost to local economy but a new road might be useful. john

Re: Housing update - tony (8th Jul 2015 - 15:17:51) Dawn, first of all thanks for an impressive analysis of the facts and issues. Yes, I think you're right, as the designated 'regional centre' aka ' dumping ground' we have been targeted for massive expansion of houses, but minus any infrastructure whatsoever. My issue with you is that you say you accept that every part of the country needs more housing, especially here in the south. I disagree. This country, in common with most of the modern world has been in the grip of a profound natural population decline for over 40 years, every single one of those the average birth rate has plummetted below the 2.2 children per generation (25 years or so) needed to maintain an equilibrium. So we should by now, be needing fewer houses. The reason Liphook needs these 1000 plus homes you have deciphered from the stats is to house those reluctantly fleeing further and further into what used to be the countryside in order to afford a basic home, having been totally priced out of the cities. We don't actually need them at all. The people buying them would rather have stayed in London, leaving enough local homes available for the locals at much lower prices, but at three quarters of a million for a two up, two down in the suburbs of Merton, they are choosing to put up with the commute and give their kids what is left of a safe, innocent upbringing in places like Liphook. They are fleeing what used to be nice, green, affordable areas of London. Why? Obviously I can't say or it may upset some of the more sensitive souls. Meanwhile in other news, the government is still totally failing to secure it's borders. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to secure ours. PS. The newcomers from the cities will laugh at what we call traffic jams, when they are used to it taking an hour to drive 2 miles.

Re: Housing update - Keith (8th Jul 2015 - 22:00:38) Tony I think your view is a little over-simplistic. While average family size may have fallen slightly there are other issues driving housing need People are living longer, and as long as people are alive they need somewhere to live, so the 'churn' of housing stock becoming available due to homeowners dying has slowed down. Also, the decline of the family unit results in the need for more accommodation for single people. And yes, there is the impact of immigration. All that said, I would agree with you that with prices in London rising outside the reach of many people, those people are forced to relocate elsewhere

Re: Housing update - Question 7 (8th Jul 2015 - 22:50:20) Dawn thank you for such a comprehensive response, three further points: i) The JCS is based on the period 2011 to 2028, thus if one was to simply view the permissions granted verses the time period we have enough houses until 2024. ii) The EHCChas a legal duty to submit to central government a five year land bank. With the approval of the Borden redevelopment it has reached this goal. iii) At the well attended public meeting in the Millennium Hall some time ago, it was suggested to the EHCC head of planning, once the districts five year land bank was secured, it may be prudent to see the effect of the 650 dwellings approved on the Liphook infrustruture before completing the allocation with the additional 175. I felt that his respond ' I have some sympathy for that point' did have some sincerity.

Re: Housing update - ellie (8th Jul 2015 - 22:57:24) Yes people are living longer, that is why we are building more nursing homes. One reason developers push further and further out away from the towns is that undeveloped agricultural land is still the cheapest way to build a lot of houses at once, getting permission on agricultural land for building houses is worth millions to a developer. That fuels the demand, as there are quite a few second hand houses for sale. Also a lot of new houses are bought off plan immediately for landlords to rent out. All new houses built in the area in the last 20 years have pushed out the settlement boundary further and further out into farmland hence the eagerness to now build in what is now the SDNP

Re: Housing update - Dawn Hoskins (9th Jul 2015 - 16:50:14) Hi Tony We are overpopulating the areas in which [globally] not just in the UK or in Liphook. We are having more children and refusing to die at 3 score years and 10. I have three grown sons, all of them would dearly love to live in the village - what are their chances? The same thing is happening with almost every family in pretty much every household (always a few of course that want to get a million miles away from their parents!!) What is the answer if not to build new homes for the new blood? I am interested in the alternative I just don't know what it is.

Re: Housing update - Dawn Hoskins (9th Jul 2015 - 17:48:00) Just responding briefly to the comment that apart from Maple Park’s 60 houses, Silent Garden’s 130, Lowsley Farm’s 100 and land off Longmoor Road 11 houses – that all other planning permissions were ‘speculation and rumour’. The planning minutes from last year spelled out a very scary figure based on the actual facts. At that time there were 375 approved dwellings yet to be started, while some were currently under construction, plus proposals for a further 568 dwellings on four sites. This number did not include the appeal sites of 104 dwellings at Bramshott Place or the ADDITIONAL 175 dwellings being thrust upon us. That folks is a total so far of 1,222 ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY TWO. link is here: bramshottandliphook-pc.gov.uk/... Of course, not 100% of appeals are successful, just 99.9%! A lot of these permission must go back a long time, I have looked at the last year or so and can find only a mere 778 dwellings. 11 dwellings - 34 Station Rd, Liphook 100 dwellings - Poultry Farm, Chiltley Lane, Liphook 140 Bohunt Manor 62 dwellings & a 60-bed nursing home OSU 40 cottages & a 64-bed care home Bramshott Place 6 dwellings 46 Haslemere Rd 330 dwellings Lowsley Farm 100 dwellings - Poultry Farm, Chiltley Lane, 35 dwellings - Pope family LAND OFF HEADLEY RD

Re: Housing update - tony (10th Jul 2015 - 03:48:03) Hi Dawn, I think the answer to your question is that our leaders have put greed before community or anything else, hence we are not proudly building a town for our families or children here, just sticking up houses for the highest bidder. These houses really aren't for us. They are for desperate people moving in from more expensive areas that they've been priced out of. I guess our children are supposed to look elsewhere too, because modern capitalism isn't about community, at least not at this level, its about greed and mass movement of desperate poor people for cheaper labour. At least I think that's what Osborne was getting at!

Re: Housing update - Anon (10th Jul 2015 - 08:21:07) Dawn, interesting to see you just cherry picked a section of my post rather than the whole point which was "all others at very early stage or speculation or rumour". You should be a politician!

Re: Housing update - Dawn Hoskins (10th Jul 2015 - 09:22:38) Anon, not trying to cherry pick in order to discredit or diminish your post, I just wouldn't want anyone to think the other houses weren't in the pipeline or just a rumour. This is real and the village need to accept it and deal with it.

Re: Housing update - ellie (10th Jul 2015 - 10:32:57) The government today said they would override local planning laws for brownfield sites. First they must compile a register of these sites! that will take ages! also developers love agricultural land because it is far cheaper, and no cost to them to knock anything down. I do not expect it will stop the big applications from coming forward.

Re: Housing update - GM (10th Jul 2015 - 11:07:15) Ellie, that's not entirely accurate about developers land choices. There's lots to consider, buildings on site are not usually the biggest cost in terms of demo. There's ground conditions /contamination which isn't just limited to industrial sites, but also recently used farmland and the like. Ground reprofiling, topsoil strips, landfill taxes depending on what's being taken off site, flooding assessments, existing drainage networks, licensing fees, it's a much larger picture. There's also tree protection, indigenous species and a host of other things to consider. From experience, an old petrol station for example, can sometimes be the better option to build on than an open field and less costly.

Re: Housing update - GM (10th Jul 2015 - 11:21:42) Tony, "these houses aren't for us"? Okay, without trying to start an argument, let me tell you the situation my family is in, not too different from Dawns lads. We wanted to buy a place in Liphook towards the end of next year, however the costs appeared too high so we started to look at Aldershot. Yesterday I took a trip up to the new development being built on the old MOD land and went to talk to the Bellway rep. They are putting the 3 beds up for sale at £340-360k! This is about 50-60k more than the average price for a similar sized property in the area. And it means we can't even look at these as an option now. It's also started to cause a housing increase in the area as a result. I should add, I've been told by someone local that there's a large BTL [buy to let] interest in these new builds and the ones snapped up already are mainly for this purpose. These people have a massive unfair advantage with buying properties over actual homebuyers because of the mortgage affordability, look up the recent BTL articles on the telegraph website if need be. The irony is that Liphook is now cheaper than Aldershot.... ALDERSHOT! So saying people are getting desperate and moving out of their expensive areas to buy cheaper isn't the case, it's to be able to buy within our means because we are being forced to. Some housebuilders are intent on driving prices up and while the BTL market is still booming until the new tax changes come into play, they will keep doing this as investors can still get ahead of homebuyers

Re: Housing update - tony (10th Jul 2015 - 13:21:17) GM, you're not starting an argument because I agree with you, it's a terrible problem, it's just the solution I reckon we'd disagree on! Have you tried Leigh Park? And before you say 'of course not who would want to live there, it's a dumping ground', no it's a 'Regional Centre', a place designated for the poor who've been priced out of their areas to move to, the end of the line. The capitalist solution neatly disguised as an 'up and coming investment opportunity' Next stop emigration, desperate poor people being hustled about for cheaper labour. As Maggie or was it Tebbit said to the miners 'get on your bike' as condescending and heartless as it gets, I feel it's going to get a lot worse not just here, before people stand up and say enough. If they were investing in jobs here I could understand it, places like Maple Park right next to the railway line could have been work spaces, maybe small units for creative or computer type businesses with a cafe overlooking the green, stuff like that would start to create a town with jobs and a reason for the young to stay. But all we got is another wall of houses. That's one of the reasons I oppose them all, I'd rather we stayed a village than an ill thought through town, we'll end up neither one thing nor the other, another soulless urban sprawl. That's why I can understand A Ryan saying that at least Bohunt offered us something, albeit too little, the rest offer us nothing at all, it's just a shame they wouldn't have counted towards our quota.

Re: Housing update - GM (10th Jul 2015 - 15:36:25) Leigh Park, God no! My brother lives there and I'm happy to maintain the distance! No seriously, it would be a difficult one because of where we work in Farnborough and London respectively, and I'm mid way through a chartership programme with my employers so leaving for pastures new unfortunately isn't an option. My annoyance just is at the current market in general with housebuilders jacking prices up in reasonably priced areas just to get that extra profit. Like I said before, the irony is that the 3 beds for TW in Liphook were cheaper than the ones Bellway are building in arguably a less attractive area.

Re: Housing update - liz (10th Jul 2015 - 16:21:39) Tony How many times do people have to say on here that ALL developers have to make a contribution!!

Re: Housing update - Keith (10th Jul 2015 - 16:38:29) I'm not disagreeing about developers bumping up the house prices but to be fair to the developers (hard I know), much of the increase in prices is outside of their control - there is now a nationwide shortage of skilled operators such as bricklayers, roofers, plumbers etc since although the number of new housing developments are going up, the numbers of people skilled in these trades is not, and as a result it comes down to the old issue of supply and demand, and once supply is limited, then the cost per day charged by these tradesmen goes up, and the developers then have to increase the property prices to recover the increased costs of tradesmen. The second issue is supply of materials - the recession caused many brickworks to either be closed or mothballed. As a result there is currently a nationwide shortage of bricks (with the result that a large number of bricks are now being imported from the Netherlands), but the cost per thousand of these bricks is higher than the cost per thousand of bricks a year or two ago. The same is true of most other building components

Re: Housing update - GM (10th Jul 2015 - 17:27:12) Hi Keith, I agree that prices have gone up. But not to the extent developers would have you believe. Brickwork has increased somewhat to around £38m2 for a half brick wall, up from about £26 a year or so ago, varying on finish quality of course and size of development. But a lot of other trades have had far more moderate increases. Take groundworks for example, in total on larger projects it makes up around 40-50% of the total workload. Yet rates haven't changed that much in the last year or so. Most companies operate on a 3% NETT profit on this side. However, let's take Barratt as an example. An increase of 45% pre tax profit has been announced. Yet their completions are only up by 11% on the previous tax year.

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home