Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

King George's Hospital site development - Freddie Dawkins (22nd Nov 2005 - 16:57:15) Dear All - For those who didn't attend the Planning Committee meeting last night - and there was a great turn-out, although most people seem to be more concerned with the Erles Road application to knock-down a house and replace it with four - I thought I'd update you on the latest plans for the King George's site. There'll be a story in the Herald, as local reporter James Baker was present, but in summary: 1. The landowners now have two separate planning applications in front of East Hampshire District Council. The first is for the Retirement Village. The second is for a development of about 150 dwellings. Last night, Parish Councillors and those members of the public present, had copies of the latest Draft Development Brief for Housing for the site. This draft is dated November 2005 and if you'd like a copy, pop into the Parish Office. The draft is very detailed and looks at lots of angles for proposed development. Some of the items covered, include a desire to have a landmark building/s to make whatever development is built a really impressive site. So we could be looking at a large building, possibly as much as 4 storeys high, at the centre/front of the development and probably containing flats. Because it's such an important landscape site, and it adjoins Radford Park, the draft emphasises the need for good quality and on-going landscaping and maintenance. The draft also looks at areas such as car parking, maintaining that any car park areas should be well screend and as non-intrusive as possible. Parish Councillors last night added some strong wishes of their own: such as underground parking, if not for the whole development, then at least for the block/s of apartments that might be built. There will obviously have to be a bus service to link the development to the rest of the community and access will be by way of Hewshott Lane - not through Radford Park as was once proposed. There is still an on-going discussion about the final boundaries of the land owned by the potential developer. The definitive mpas are held by the Parish Council and we'll be ensuring that no public land is encroached on. On the contentious issue of footpaths - both official and unofficial, there will be more discussion. On fencing and enclosure of the site, I made a strong case for removal of the barbed wire fencing that has been erected by the landowner. The draft development brief talks about "robust fencing". That could be rustic in nature or thick hedging, appropriate to the site and existing planting/trees. So, just a very quick snapshot of some of the details - would recommend everyone to pop into the Parish Office and read/get a copy of the draft and make comments/proposals back to the Parish Planning Committee. rgds to all here Freddie Dawkins Parish Councillor

Re: King George's Hospital site development - Mike Grimes (23rd Nov 2005 - 00:45:58) I'd be interested to know who wanted the underground car parks. It sure as hell will not be the future residents of this development whichever way it goes. Have you not noticed where people park their cars these days, if there is somewhere 5cm closer to where they want to go then that will be it. Avenue close for the school run, the bus stop or taxi rank to pick up spouse or child from the station. How many people park their cars in a garage even if it is right next to the house? So how many are going to go to the effort of parking underground? I have seen council planners take the view that if they approve a planned housing development with no parking at all then none of the residents will buy cars. Of course if this causes competition for parking places, then a residents parking permit scheme might be in order, just think how much revenue that might generate. Even more if we have a clamp of traffic wardens in Liphook.

Re: King George's Hospital site development - Chris (23rd Nov 2005 - 06:20:49) Now that this controversial application seems to have been given the green light we can only hope for two things: 1. That the quality of the development is sympathetic to local surroundings and local needs and not just a get rich quick scheme for the so-called developers and... 2. That finally, Liphook has done its bit to fulfil that idiot Prescott's dreams of questionable green-field over-development. Any future schemes to further over-crowd the area should be vigorously contested without compromise!

Re: King George's Hospital site development - Freddie Dawkins (23rd Nov 2005 - 09:51:41) Chris - The Draft Development Plan is exactly that - a draft. There's been no decision on what should/will be built and no planning permissions granted. The Inspector who reviewed the Local Plan drawn up by East Hampshire District Council, has made it clear that there could be housing on the former King George's site, but has then put in lots of caveats to manage the development. That's why it's so important that parishoners get involved in the process and make their views known at each stage of this. More than a year ago, a development company brought their initial plans for a retirement village to the Parish. There was a public meeting and a lot of discussion - including a fairly long message string here. Mike - love the "clamp" of wardens. What a nice new collective noun. I actually support the idea of underground parking - and would like to see it at the station as well. When that final piece of land next to the Beaver Industrial Estate is developed, we could have an underground car park that would act as an overflow car park to the station, as well as providing space for people working and living in the immediate area. If you look at Belgium, Spain etc, they all build underground car parks as a matter of course. There's no big deal and it removes a lot of cars from the street scene - and reduces the tarmac areas on the surface! rgds Freddie

Re: King George's Hospital site development - Niall Greenwood (19th Dec 2005 - 17:38:33) Unfortunately I was unable to make the meeting to discuss the King George's site development, and as newcomers to Hewshott Lane we can see that there has been a lot of discussion about this plan already. My immediate concern however is increase in traffic flow in Hewshott Lane. I assume there is a good reason why traffic can not be channeled via London Road, but with the current Hindhead crossing congestion there is bound to be more traffic forced elsewhere. Hewshott Lane is tiny, has precious little in the way of passing spaces, several blind turns and entries. This plan consequently appears to have all the elements of a traffic hazard in the making - particularly due to the horse riders who use Hewshott Lane. Either some serious thought needs to be given to rerouting the domestic and commercial traffic that will be caused by this scheme, or it should be put on hold until Hindhead is unblocked. I look forward to your response(s) and any light you can shed.

Re: King George's Hospital site development - Freddie Dawkins (29th Dec 2005 - 21:19:54) Niall - Just read your message tonight, so a quick update. At the last PC Panninmg Committee meeting, we considered two applications from the same developer for the King George's site. The first was to build a retirement village-style development of about, I think, 140 dwellings. Sorry, the paperwork I had is filed elsewhere and it was a loooong meeting. The second was to build an open market development of about the same number of dwellings. Some of the Councillors favoured the retirement village - in particular believing that such development would protect the environment, mean better landscaping etc. I was of the contrary view. If we are to have housing, I'd much rather see an open market development, not a ghetto for older people, and I'd also demand a social housing contribution (something like 30% of the dwellings managed by a housing associatiuon and/or discounted to key workers. And I mean key, such as teachers, nurses, emergency services personnel). Anyway, we had a vote and the retirement-style village development won through. But this is all at a very early stage. The Parish Council has no real power - it can recommentdor object. Now the applications go back to East Hampshire District Council and the deliberations will continue. I'll not go back over some of the discussions we had here some time ago with the PR company for the developers, etc. But I really would encourage anyone who is concerned about the effect this development will have, to get involved and take part in the discussions, ask questions and talk to Parish and District Councillors. If you're not sure who they are - ask me via this website or pop into the Parish Office. It's all public information and freely available. On Hewshoot Lane. traffic flows, etc. This was a major discussion point. There was a prevailing view that all exiting traffic would be forced to turn right, therefore having to go back along Hewshott Lane to the London Road. To me, this would make sense. But, I wonder what effect that would have on traffic through the village? The traffic study we were given by the developers was poor and very incomplete. One Councillor, a professional transport consultant but not a member of the Planning Committee, made some excellent points from his public position at the meeting. We have made our comments at this stage to the District Council and expect to see a much better traffic study produced. Let's see what happens next. Oh yes, and to those who remember the early confrontations about footpaths, boundaries, etc. It's still ongoing and no-one will be taking any public land into private ownership. The Parish Council has the definitive local maps and knows exactly where the various established legal footpaths are. We'll be sure to protect them. rgds to all interested. Freddie Dawkins Parish Councillor

Re: King George's Hospital site development - Chris (30th Dec 2005 - 05:57:21) Freddie, Your comment "...The traffic study we were given by the developers was poor and very incomplete..." is cause for concern. Hardly surpising that they botched it as it is in their interests to suppress bad news. Until these developers submit a comrehensive and cogent analysis or someone does it for them, the scheme should be halted. Currently, the centre of Liphook is a traffic nightmare and this will only compound it; it sort of flies in the face of other thread comments made about local traders who will see themselves simply by-pased in favour of more accessible shopping areas. Also, getting to the finer detail, it is imperative to ensure that all building work traffic should not gain access via the village centre. Could you please post some names and addresses that we can write to? Thanks, Chris.

Re: King George's Hospital site development - Freddie Dawkins (30th Dec 2005 - 18:40:00) Chris, Sure. First, address all correspondence to: Mrs Gina Spencer, Secretary, The Planning Committee, Bramshott & Liphook Parish Council, The Haskell Centre, Midhurst Road, Liphook GU30 7TN. Ask Gina to cc all Planning Committee members and she'll be happy to do so. Next level up is: East Hampshire District Council, South Planning Committee, The Secretary, Penns Place, Petersfield GU31 4EX. Again, ask the Secretary to cc your correspondence to all members. If you'd like to go online and check status of the applications, you can now do so via the improved EHDC website: www.ehdc.gov.uk There you can also identify the Case Officers handling the files, so you can call them direct or write to them as well. The new head of planning is very pro-active and approachable and he's like a breath of fresh air at Penns Place, so don't be put off by the thought of bureaucracy - Penns Place is changing rather rapdily - and for the better. Keep track of what's going on through this website - I'll do my best to post updates and give plenty of noitice of any meetimgs. For your info, the next Parish planning committee meeting will be held in Liphook on Monday January 16. It will start at 8pm in the Haskell Centre office. Do not yet know what the agenda will be, but you can always phone the week before and check. Tel: 722988 Now, on some of the points you mentioned about traffic. Totally agree - and although I was not involved at the time of the Sainsbury's development, I know Councillors look back on that period and realise how flawed the Sainsbury's traffic estimates were. There have been all sorts of knock-on effects from that, including the release of reserved land etc etc. All too late now, that's why the Councillors are not going to forget the lesson and will ensure that proper traffic studies are done - indeed demanded - of the developers this time around. Site traffic routing should not be such a problem - but again it';s a case of enforcing the regulations. I think you'll find that Councillors and others will monitor construction traffic very carefully. I just hope that we get a development that's worthy of the site and the special conservation area involved, and that we disrupt village life as little as possible. There's no point in just bulding more houses - it's community and infrastructure that we have to address here. One sideline to all this: at the time of the idea of the retirement village, some Parish and District Councillors (notably Evelyn Hope) made a strong point about the demandsa of older people in terms of medical care etc. Although the developers have produced supporting statements from both our surgeries, saying they could cope with another 300 or so patients, I think we all know the real answer to that. What's driving the surgeries? - presumably revenue. I do not believe that a sudden surge in patients could be easily absorbed at either surgery - dentists would be a bit under pressure too! Lots still to debate. rgds Freddie

Re: King George's Hospital site development - Barbara Easton (8th Mar 2006 - 11:56:46) Development of any kind will be detrimental to the wildlife in the conservation area. I have had personal experience of a developer who bought land adjacent to mine, illegally uprooted protected alder trees and made a wasteland. Previous years herons were nesting on the banks of the river they have not returned. The noise from the development will scare any sensible wildlife away. The most popular household pet is now a cat. These kill wild birds. 150 new households? At least 30 more pet cats in the area. Why the need to urbanise our countryside? There are plently of houses for sale in the local area, new ones will not be any cheaper. This is also not the end of development in Liphook. Bohunt Manor has also been sold to developers. There is activity there already. An archeological survey needs to be done at the hospital site, as Bramshott Place was very well recorded as far back as the 12th Century.

Re: King George's Hospital site development - Mammal (8th Apr 2006 - 08:48:26) I don't know what happened in the meeting the other night but, I can't believe anyone is up for any residential development at all. Get a grip, people, get a grip. Build a school or hospital, sure, if something must be built. But these houses are completely uneccasary, we are not reproducing that quickly, the government is assuming the increase in housing will stablise the market giving the green light to all kinds of grabby property developers looking for the quick buck with no concern for the impact on the established community or habitat. Imagine what the centre of Liphook will be like at peak times.

Re: King George's Hospital site development - Barbara Easton (8th Apr 2006 - 16:14:21) I attended the planning meeting at EHDC on Thursday, and both the retirement village and the mixed housing development were approved. The most any objectors to this plan can do now is try to limit the damage, by telling the developers that we are keeping a close watch on what they are doing. Unfortunately with John Prescott encouraging the developers Liphook could become a town if planning applications are not rigourously CHALLENGED. I have always found the local council ready to listen whether or not they can limit the damage remains to be seen. It is a very important site and hopefully the development will be of good quality design and layout.

Re: King George's Hospital site development - Mike Grimes (9th Apr 2006 - 02:57:12) Barbara, I think most of your arguments are very NIMBY. The only way we can make housing affordable for those that do not already own it is :- a) Build more housing. or b) Reduce the number of households requiring a dwelling. Now b) can only be achieved by genocide, mass deportation or more people living in a single dwelling. This government seems hell bent on increasing the immigrant population which is mainly attracted to the larger cities. Pressure on housing then forces people out to the suburbs and then, consequently, to more rural areas. So, with this policy, more housing is required everywhere. If your biggest concern is the cat population then now would be a good time to remind people that if 'bird flu' is going to get into the home, then a cat may very well be involved. Sadly, a reduction in cat population will not result in a need for less houses and, currently, will not help the bird's predicament.

Re: King George's Hospital site development - Chris (10th Apr 2006 - 12:12:49) I refer to my original point regarding traffic analysis and other infrastructure studies such as schooling which must surely be a pre-requisite to this building and all other large building schemes in our area. The leg work regarding infrastructure is all too often forgotten or is bodged as budgets and timescales force building companies to do their worst as quickly and cost-efficiently as they can without proper regard for the legacy problems that result. "Build it and run" cannot be an option anymore so whoever is going to do this better have the true facts ready regarding the impact. If not of their own accord then by persistence and insistance from concerned locals, the Parish Council and anyone else in authority.

Re: King George's Hospital site development - Locally Concerned (11th Apr 2006 - 01:51:24) Am I alone in thinking that Liphook can't really absorb more developements without major commitment to local services!. Fact is, and I know, the majority of those living in the local conurbation, agree, that we are being swamped with housing developement applications which, O.K. ,if the infrastructure could support would be fine. The problem is that it cannot. It was mentioned on an earlier thread that docs. surgeries could take another 300 registrations each, dentists equally o.k., can you believe that is true, I don't. Our streets are no way able to cope with peak traffic in school terms. (would you like to live in The Avenue, or near) And, more planning applications exist,granted in some cases. Thirty something houses down by The Links. How many at Passfield Mews?. It's o.k. to have expansion, but should it not be controlled locally for the benefit of those that live and work in the community, and less to do with enriching those who would make many bucks out of exploiting what they can 'cos they know how to from previous experience. As a parent it worries me.

Re: King George's Hospital site development - Niall Greenwood (26th Apr 2006 - 15:42:07) Dear All An an objector/commentator on the King George's site proposal I was asked to speak for the objectors at EHDC meeting on 6 Apr 06 - I was so dispondent with the response I received that it has frankly taken me this long to post a message. I did try to get the following letter into the Herald, but there was insufficient time for inclusion, so in the end I was only able to to tell a few neighbours, one of which came to the meeting. Anyway the points were; *Firstly, that many members of the public feel poorly consulted on this issue, and that they have not been made aware of their opportunity to air concerns. *Secondly, that the public request an assurance that sufficient education, transport, health and social services exist for the new residents of the estate. *Thirdly, that environmental issues have been properly considered, and that a mechanism be put in place to deal with any failure to honour agreements. *Fourthly, given the number of applications and appeals currently running for this site, (4), that the public be given a clear statement of the mix of properties, eg retirement homes, market properties, affordable and starter homes, that will be developed. *Fifthly, that the maintenance costs of this large development and its associated facilities are not passed back to local residents at some future stage. *Finally, that traffic impact on Hewshott, Hammer and Sandy Lanes and their protected areas and any risk to highway safety be properly considered, and remedied in accordance with the Council’s aim to limit traffic impact. As the session allowed for comments and not debate I was unable to ask any questions, or get any of the assurances I sought from EHDC. So really I am only recording what I said, and has been reported in the Herald. A further opportunity to influence the detailed plans will present itself - but having read an article in today's Guardian about the British 'love for Barrett/Wimpey homes', (apparently), I think we can begin to work out what we are going to get on this development now it has got planning permission, and what inpact that will have locally. Niall Greenwood

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home