Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

SDNP consultation - Local (1st Feb 2025 - 15:54:09) Just come back from looking at the plans lots of people. Come to the conclusion that it’s as usual another box ticking exercise. No real explanations as to why we have to have another travelers site as we have already got 23 in liphook and surrounding area not one in Petersfield. And all the traffic generated will go through the square lovely. Another sticking plaster. SDNP not doing any favours for liphook.

Re: SDNP consultation - Disappointed (3rd Feb 2025 - 10:40:43) What ever is going on the SDNP are playing silly Bs this plan is a laugh. The liphook people tell them what is needed and they do the exact opposite a conspiracy me think’s. Why is it that liphook gets the dirty end of the stick.

Re: SDNP consultation - JRM (3rd Feb 2025 - 19:39:59) Everybody should be encouraged to send their comments to the SDNP Planning Department. The more comments registering concerns the greater chance the SDNP will take note on the plight of Liphook should the site EA215 be developed.

Re: SDNP consultation - Interested (27th Aug 2025 - 19:50:14) Does anyone know if there have been any reports on this consultation is this piece of land going to be opened up to longmoor road roundabout for the benefit of liphook. I see the football club are looking for a new place for a new pitch this stretch of land could do so much for liphook if the national park people would cooperate and take their heads out of the sand.

Re: SDNP consultation - Local 4527 (27th Aug 2025 - 21:52:42) Just out of interest, how are you calculating these '23 travellers sites' in or around Liphook as opposed to near Petersfield? I couldn't name you one travellers site in Liphook although I know there was one at the top of Devils Lane for a while and arguably the stables, which is not really a travelling site but seems to be a family home complex with 2 or 3 static caravans, could that be one that you counted? In the meantime over 100 acres of countryside has been permanently lost and built upon with concrete for various toy town Barratts type estates for the settlers. I always suspect mentioning travellers sites is just intended to rouse the rabble! Can you list them by any chance?

Re: SDNP consultation - Joe (28th Aug 2025 - 08:13:51) As far as I am aware the official traveller sites are past old Thorns - I think it is informally known as queens Rd. There are also some at Devils Lane. With regard the football club, sports and medical centre always had permission to build since before the land was designated National Park. The football club entered into talks with the owners to move. All that was on offer ( probably the same now) was the land. They were told to raise the money themselves for landcaping, buildings, stadium, access road, changing room, lighting etc. They would also have a problem getting floodlighting permissions for evening matches. Also do not forget the cost of increased grounds maintenance for a bigger area. It was the same for the medical centre that has always had permission to build but the same deal applies to the land there ? Anyhow do not think the offer of land was freehold ? Which would mean rental on a leasehold basis. From memory neither surgery wanted to move for that kind of deal.

Re: SDNP consultation - D (28th Aug 2025 - 10:49:22) 23 sites or 23 plots? A plot being the area a mobile home sits on? To say "site" gives a very misleading impression. If there are 23 sites I stand corrected, where are they?

Re: SDNP consultation - Paul2 (28th Aug 2025 - 12:14:16) Local is correct. It's box ticking, especially as our Deputy PM can reform PP to over-rule local decisions. Always good to have our voice, but we need to know we probably won't be listened to. BTW what's the deal with Petersfield getting off so lightly? Is there a council member living there by any chance?!

Re: SDNP consultation - Local (28th Aug 2025 - 14:49:34) Local 4527 you asked presumably to me where the travelers sites are . When visiting all the exhibits and stands someone asked why we had to have another traveler site in the centre of liphook. Someone answered that as we have 23 sites in and around liphook it seemed to be not necessary. As to where they are ask the EHDC because they are the people that should know. It just seems ridiculous just to open up that end of the piece of land when it could all be such an asset to liphook when liphook is desperate for infrastructure. We have grown at such a rate we have outgrown our infrastructure as a town something needs to be done.

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home