Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

threat to open access land near Liphook - dee smith (19th Sep 2012 - 10:43:27) if you value the open space on Weavers Down then please object to the planning application to build a golf course there. Plans include a full time employee to enforce that dogs are kept on leads. The land has a right of open access to all, but this right will conflict with golfers knocking golf balls around, buggies tearing around and tractors constantly mowing. So object to the interference of the right to roam Plans are on website: http://planningpublicaccess.southdowns.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=M7CKBRTU02L00 application number SDNP/12/01373/FUL You have only until 27th September to object as planners put no notices up, so no one knows its happening.

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - liz (19th Sep 2012 - 13:11:18) If they are allowed to build a golf course and associated buildings in the Woolmer Forest SSSI and South Downs National Park, what is the point in having these designations? I thought a particular effort had been made to extend the SDNP to include Woolmer Forest. All we can do is boycott Old Thorns but that's not likely to happen. Used to be nice but now a rather overgrown brick 'carbuncle'!

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - Debbie (19th Sep 2012 - 14:20:31) I can't believe that this is the first that we've heard of this! Where on earth have they managed bury this and almost sneek it through? Were the parish council informed? Has it been in the papers? Where are the notices on the land? I could go on!! I have heard that De Veres will only buy Old Thorns if it has two golf courses so its just a means to an end for them!

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - Councillor Barbara Easton (19th Sep 2012 - 15:33:44) The Parish Council were not informed of this because the land is in West Sussex not Hampshire. The place to complain is The South Downs National Park website where the application has been lodged. Obviously we are close so the Parish Council are discussing this application on Monday at 7.30 PM in the Peak Centre.

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - liz (19th Sep 2012 - 16:40:38) Good grief the site is absolutely enormous!!! I couldn't understand how an application for a second course at Old Thorns could be on land north of a cottage in Rogate. But the site stretches all the way around Liphook, behind Foley Manor, Champneys and the Equine Hospital and on towards Rake. Surely a development on this scale would make such a major change to our protected landscape that a public enquiry is needed. A golf course and associated development will destroy the existing habitat no matter how many trees and pretty heathers they plant.

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - Ed [not editor] (19th Sep 2012 - 20:22:44) Liz, It's about time you started thinking about jobs and employment for local people. There are plenty of other places for pepole to take their dogs for a poo, just look at google earth to see how under developed this area really is. The lizards will soon understand the term 'fore' and go and find another home, even though golf courses provide good habitat for them. I expect that you like the army to stop training on the ranges too?

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - Adam (20th Sep 2012 - 00:06:33) Good on you Liz. Totally support where you are coming from.

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - liz (20th Sep 2012 - 09:09:59) Ed (not editor) You obviously have absolutely no appreciation of the value or biodiversity of the landscape in which you live which is very, very sad. Employment is very important but we do not have to destroy one of the area's key assets in order to provide it. In any event, golf courses do not provide high density employment. Did you campaign for the remainder of the OSU site to be used for businesses? I doubt it.

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - bdavies (20th Sep 2012 - 10:20:58) Agree with you Liz. We have two lovely golf courses both within a very short distance of each other. I love golf but I think, like most, I can make do.

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - h (20th Sep 2012 - 11:38:09) Eds post is sad because it is already a protected area in the SDNP and weavers down is not just " underdeveloped land"? Golf courses are as someone says are not big providers of employment, Countryside areas are for enjoyment not just prime development opportunities! If I had wanted to live in a built up area I would have moved to Inner London long ago. Why is Hyde Park not built on? It is my understanding that Old thorns do not even own this land? who does?

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - simon (20th Sep 2012 - 19:34:57) I think your find that ed is a green keeper!

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - rr (20th Sep 2012 - 22:14:20) "The lizards will soon understand the term 'fore' and go and find another home," hmm naive comment i think... Did you know that in the whole of hampshire weavers down and associated area over to woolmer pond ( it is the only native site in southern England ) is one of only two small sites left for the natterjack toad, Same goes for the smooth snake another very rare species also the sand lizard and a host of other species that find a small area on our doorstep some of the last suitable habitat in the country to sustain their species?!!! I personally would like to keep this small area that is designated of national importance (quoted from old thorns own survey) as it is... What extra employment will this honestly create? The existing staff will just be expected to work twice as hard and at what cost.... We already have plenty of golf courses within a few miles why do we need to sacrifice valuable habitat (and common land owned by all!!! not by a corporation ) for the sake of a few people to knock a ball around?

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - tony (21st Sep 2012 - 12:08:44) What on earth do they need two golf courses for? It's not Wentworth you know. Wasn't it mark Twain who said golf is a good walk spoiled? Did I deny my little patch of lawn water all through the Spring just for them to go and build another water guzzling course on Weavers Down? The south of Spain is suffering perpetual drought now because of all the ex-pat golf courses. And I enjoy golf! But most courses are almost empty 90% of the time being sprinkled to keep the lush manicured greens just so for the sunny day Friday afternoon long lunch BMW 520 diesel brigade, one of the few times most of these courses come anywhere near capacity.

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - Lindsay Black (23rd Sep 2012 - 10:25:22) I am so glad others like you have seen this. I only found out yesterday when on Weavers Down walking my dog and it made me very angry why such short notice had been given let alone the stupid idea to build a golf course there. The golfers, who most do not live here have enough space to play without taking even more beautiful countryside and ruining it for us that live here. I have made views known publicly on the council web site but must admit very surprised the South Downs National Park have not stopped it before it even got this far. I personally feel it is a bad joke and and awareness needs to be raised to the people of Liphook ASAP. Any ideas ?

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - Debbie (23rd Sep 2012 - 12:06:41) Maybe a thread that's called "Say NO to Old Thorns second Golf course" so people know where the threat is rather than "threat to open access land near Liphook."

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - Roller (23rd Sep 2012 - 18:27:23) What an tragedy if this uniquely unspoilt and undeveloped part of Hampshire and West Sussex is ruined by the creation of yet another golf course. Surely in these times of austerity these are the sort of luxuries people can ill afford. I walk my dogs here on an almost daily basis (although not necessarily during office hours) and often see other people, so I would certainly dispute the allegation that only 1 or 2 people a day walk there. Perhaps they have been deterred by the plethora of notices which suddenly appeared earlier on this year warning of the presence of adders!

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - Ge (23rd Sep 2012 - 19:45:58) Golf courses are open spaces and can be beautiful places. I have played on plenty with public footpaths across them, e.g. Cowdray, Milford. Being able to let dogs roam free chasing animals and defecating wherever they please, especially on and alongside public paths is not a good. Work with the owners and have them protect the natural wildlife, don't just shout them down.

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - Jane G (23rd Sep 2012 - 20:15:40) I walk my dog at Weavers frequently, but please do check out the plans before assuming Weavers will be no more. The area to be developed is at the very far end of Weavers and is currently behind a fence and is not generally used by dog walkers. I would prefer this area wasn't developed into a golf course as it provides a beautiful unspoilt view of the countryside, but it won't stop any of us walking at Weavers as we do now. I don't think we need yet another golf course, and my understanding is that the owner of Old Thorns can't sell out to De Veres unless there are two golf courses. That would be my objection....how else would De Veres develop Old Thorns once they get their hands on it?

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - Roy (24th Sep 2012 - 10:33:30) My partner and I took our dogs for a walk on the designated area yesterday as we normally do most weekends and we saw the notices for the first time. I was certainly there last weekend and there were no notices then! I am not sure if notices need to be put up for a minimum period of time because this seems really short notice and if so this might contravene planning application regulations/ law? Can somebody advise please?

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - Roger Hill (24th Sep 2012 - 11:46:18) This heathland course has used the ethos of the courses in the New Forest where rights of access are shared and enjoyed by golfers, the public and grazing animals. The public will have the right of way at all times and a course steward will be on hand to see that is the case and that safety to all is maintained. There has been a close consultation with Natural England to develop a strategy to improve the ecological value of this land and include the SSSI linking adjoining managed SSSI\'s at Weavers and Forest Mere. It is proposed that dogs are kept under control for the interests of both the ecology and others enjoying the open access. Dogs out of control have a detrimental impact to the ground nesting birds and livestock. The area where golf is played represents less than half the area. Ecologically sensitive areas both existing and proposed will be \"out of play\". At present on this land there are degrees of vandalism including, burnt out cars, fly tipping, off road motor cycling and arson. Consideration should be given to what could happen to this land should there not be a proposal that is mutually beneficial, for example uses such as a return to intensive farming, equestrian uses... these are some of the more acceptable uses, however they will in turn restrict access.

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - Debbie (24th Sep 2012 - 12:01:12) Roy, Roger Hill above should be able to answer your question as he is appying for permission to do this on Old Thorns behalf I believe.

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - roy (24th Sep 2012 - 12:21:15) Thank you Liz it would be interesting if Roger Hill did comment on my question. Quickly looking on the internet it seems that 21days notice should have been given, and as there was no notice on the land last weekend I feel that not enough notice has been given I am preparing a letter of objection regarding this application with a strong emphasis on the impact it has on the public's right to use common land especially with regard to the degrading of access rights and public enjoyment which is against the principles of the second purpose of the South Downs National Park

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - liz (24th Sep 2012 - 15:21:11) Oh I see if it's an SSSI you get round it by saying its a heathland golf course!! What on earth difference does that make?! Despite all the weasel words about protecting the ecology ....... absolutely none at all!! Let's only hope the National Park Authority are more aware. If you are a developer you can spend a huge amount of money presenting what appears to be a good case but unfortunately those bodies charged with protecting our scenery and wildlife just don't have access to the same sort of funds to refute the argument.

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - Debbie (24th Sep 2012 - 16:22:31) Liz, If they're that worried about the ecology and ground nesting birds and livestock they'll stop the Disney style fireworks and the owners frequent trips in and out in a helicopter but as you so rightly said "If you are a developer you can spend a huge amount of money presenting what appears to be a good case" All said and done Old Thorns ALWAYS seem to get every thing they apply for so expect permission to be given.

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - rr (24th Sep 2012 - 19:28:24) Golf courses and common land really dont mix (regardless what those paid to make it sound good!!!), little white missiles flying around etc.... so i thought i would look around at golfers opinions on playing a course on common land. First found was a cheap pay and play course not an exclusive course and the comments of golfers coming from playing the course were not favourable to say the least...so i copied some and posted the comments here... \"Regarding the footpaths through the course, I only encountered one woman walking her dog (slowly) down the centre of the fairway, but I can see how that might start to annoy after a while.\" \"the course seems to have random people just strolling up the fairways totally oblivious to the fact that it is actually meant to be a golf course.\" \"poorly laid out and the day was further ruined by the large volume of dog walkers who went out of their way to hold up those trying to play the game. I appreciate it\'s common land, but some etiquette would have been nice.\" \"I was well aware the course was on common land but it could not prepare me for how \"public\" the course was! There wasn\'t a hole where we did not have to wait for someone to cross the fairway or stroll across the green, seeming oblivious to the fact we were there. Dog walkers, couples kissing next to the greens and families on bikes.\" Now imagine someone has paid a considerable amount to play on our common land?! I can see confrontation already or the golfers just wont use the 18 holes and stick to their private 18 holes so it will then be a pointless exercise... The other issue is if old thorns does go ahead it can go for ownership of the land if it manages to \"persuade\" people not to use the land for a length of time.... Once its gone its gone...

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - KP (24th Sep 2012 - 23:21:13) I've only just scanned some of the comments, everyone accept for Ed assumes public access, biodiversity and golf are incompatible. It does seem a little bit about not in ‘my back yard’, with little thought for local jobs not just green keepers but a far higher number working within the tourism industry, many of which are low paid a local. Land owners should be applauded for making a positive contribution to the rural economy rather than drawing on grant aid to support unsustainable landscapes such as heathland, especially when it’s undertaken sensitively. The New Forest, one of our most protected landscapes in Europe has 3 golf courses, 7,000 commoners animals rooming over it and over 20 million visitors. All that is needed is a little bit of compromise and an open mind.

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - liz (25th Sep 2012 - 09:14:54) The New Forest has three golf courses? Now remind me, that\'s three golf courses in how many acres? Whatever the size, Liphook\'s golf course density is already much higher than that!! I think a previous poster has outlined how public access and golf are incompatible. Once again the old Nimby/tourism/jobs arguments are trotted out. Jobs are of course very important but even though the golf course could provide employment for more than green keepers, the employment density would be limited bearing in mind the acreage despoiled. Tourism is well known for its conflicts with ecology and the situation is usually only satisfactorily resolved in the minds of the developers. That said, tourists would hopefully come to the area to see our beautiful countryside not our golf courses. As for Nimbyism this is not an individual or even two or three individuals backyard\'s the SSSI and other heathland should be for everybody. And Ed\'s views? Well I heard he was a greenkeeper...... (see earlier post).

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - Roy (25th Sep 2012 - 11:25:20) I attended the Bramshott & Liphook Parish Council meeting last night where this matter was discussed. There was a strong delegation from the Old Thorns Golf and Country Club who gave a presentation to support their planning application. They had an array of drawings and picture to complement their argument. Interestingly their main presenter was unsure where the site is, he not know his North from his South, which didn’t leave me with a deal of great confidence in him! In my opinion in their presentation they gave little or no good reason why the council should support their application. They talked about the land being used by motorbikes, cars, arson, for fly tipping, and dog walkers! They also mentioned a “what if scenario” suggesting that if they did not get permission the land might be used for intensive farming, equestrian use and worse still the MOD might buy it! I found the above arguments very strange and completely without foundation and fortunately I am grateful to the Parish Council for allowing me the opportunity to respond to their presentation. My case against the planning application was presented in two areas, the first based on the arguments they presented and the second on a letter from the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA). I argued that the majority of the land in the application is actually fenced in and there is no access for cars, motorbikes or fly tippers and I have never seen any evidence of arson. Where this may have occurred is at the end of a track leading from near the Deer’s Hut and that even there it is a very rare occurrence. I also argued that people should be able to walk their dogs on common land without restrictions from a golf club. With regard to their “what if scenario” I had to stop myself laughing, I accused them of scaremongering and creating a red herring, In my opinion it is unconceivable that the SDNPA would even consider intensive farming or equestrian activities as they are not in line with the reasons for the SDNPA existing to protect such areas. The mention of the MOD was pure scaremongering, we all know that the military is being reduced and the MOD is actually selling land, why would they want to buy this piece of land? I then presented my second argument based on a letter from the SDNPA dated 11th April 2012 The area in the letter that I mentioned came under the heading of “Socio Economic” and can be seen on the SDNPA website. I will not include the entire paragraph that I read out to the Parish Council but it talks about the area being Open Access land and being registered as Common Land. They state that “a golf club would interfere and cause conflict with the exercising of these rights and potentially cause a nuisance and disturbance to the enjoyment of the land. In particular existing public access to the site and legibility and permeability through the site by those users” It also goes on to say “Any degrading of these access rights or public enjoyment would go against the principle of the second purpose of the SDNPA” On completion of my presentation I asked the council to object to the planning application and I am pleased to say that Councillor John Tough also argued against the application and proposed that it be rejected which it formally was by the council. I would like to think that my arguments helped the council come to their decision but there is still a long way to go and we need as many people as possible to write to the SDNPA objecting to the application!!!!!!

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - h (25th Sep 2012 - 12:15:21) The authority to object to is the South downs national Parks authority, the Parish council can only send in an objection to them as the deciding body is in West Sussex, Chichester District Council.

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - liz (25th Sep 2012 - 15:14:42) Well done Roy. The scaremongering reminds me of the time Sainsbury's were planning their move to Liphook - someone suggested the store was better than a waste burning facility..... Old Thorns haven't thought of that one!!

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - Peter Anson (25th Sep 2012 - 15:23:47) Some time ago I met a buggy while walking on weavers down. In reply to my question asking what was happening, the reply was that they were planning a golf course. There were three in the party including one person wearing a CDC jacket. My response was that to the best of my knowledge this had been rejected twice so what made him think this time would be successful. The reply was that this time the course would be designed, as in the New Forest, to fit in sympathetically to the environement. I am sure the previous proposals also took the environement into account, parkland type developments for example would not grow here. The two previous applications were turned down when the land was not even in the South Downs Park! Have any circumstances changed to justify the previous two rejections to be overturned. It seems to me to be the usual case of \"drip drip drip and wear them down\". This is in the South Downs park and it is for use by the GENERAL PUBLIC not just dog walkers most of whom are very responsible. As time goes by more people will get to know and use the park. Now to the cross country motor bikes they should have been stopped long ago but on being accosted they claimed to have had permission? One last matter as previously pointed out this course will take up nearly all this land (most of it will be within the boundaries of the course), unlike the New Forest were golf takes up a relatively small area). I cannot see the public being allowed "open access" in the event of a course being permitted. This facility would allow a few to used manicured facilities at the expense of the Public and wildlife, which in spite of all that has been said will be drastically limited and will decline. How can it be otherwise when such a large part will be under the mower and the forested areas tidied to enable golfers to find and play their balls. I sincerely hope this land will be kept as is for the many rather than a few golfers, like me Peter

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - Ed (27th Sep 2012 - 18:20:48) Peter, you have it completely back to front, there would be more people on the new golf course than there would be walking dogs, or wandering around with a bottle of water in their hand pretending to excercise. Obviously the hotel owners will have done a business plan to prove that it makes sense, without the throughput it would not be viable, I can not believe that they would make the investment in our local community if the figures did not add up. As for smooth snakes they exist everywhere, I found one when I was strimming a garden in the midhurst road recently, they don't need a SSSI site to live. (although that one might have done)

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - Rev Andrew Carter (27th Sep 2012 - 19:12:33) These red-herrings about possible intensive agricultural use or equestrian use of the land are quite bogus. The land is riddled with ragwort, which makes it dangerous for grazing animals, and the extensive rabbit warrens make it lethal for both horses and riders. It is a beautiful, natural and unspoilt habitat which supports all kinds of wildlife from the burnet moth and natterjack toad at the lower end of the foodchain to, buzzards, sparrowhawks and badgers at the top. Red kites have even been seen returning to the area this year and developing it now could well ruin their chances of getting established. Turning it into a golf course would amount to a criminal disregard of the environment and biodiversity of the area, not to mention the infringement of everybody's rights to roam on what is access and common land. I appeal to everybody to object to this development which would be just another case of big business riding roughshod over the local community.

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - rr (27th Sep 2012 - 23:17:20) Ed seriously behave!!! "The smooth snake is Britain's rarest reptile, found only on heathlands in Dorset and Hampshire and on one or two heaths in Surrey and West Sussex. Many of the sites on which it occurs are also inhabited by the sand lizard. The smooth snake is dependent on well managed heathland where it occupies mature vegetation that provides good cover. The smooth snake shares the slow-worm habit of hiding under stones, logs and other debris exposed to the sun." But if you are insinuating that you killed the snake then this is the fun bit.... " Due to its rarity, the smooth snake is strictly protected by British and European law which makes it an offence to kill, injure, sell/trade, capture or disturb them or damage or destroy their habitat." In destroying its habitat and killing the snake you have just admitted to committing an offence. Either you dont know what you are looking at or midhurst road has just become a protected site and your lined up for a knock on the door :) You certainly seem misinformed just like old thorns are maybe both of you should do your research.

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - rr (27th Sep 2012 - 23:24:21) Just to make everyone aware that hampshire wildlife trust (who manage weavers down bog) has submitted an objection to the proposed plan also the RSPB has and sussex wildlife trust are about to submit an objection also. Looks like the objections are rolling in :)

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - liz (28th Sep 2012 - 08:39:53) I see the developers have written an article stating their case on the front page of the Liphook Herald... at least I assume they must have written it. Ed - by the way you are wrong about smooth snakes they are by no means everywhere. The reason they ARE there is because they are protected and the reason you may see them in Liphook is because you are near the SSSI.

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - Jaybee (28th Sep 2012 - 09:03:27) Currently on holiday in Algarve. The ugliest site imaginable are the huge golfing enterprises which stretch for miles. The holiday homes look like slums of the future when money has run out. Is this what we want Liphook to become? It already has the pothole roads and fly-tipping!

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - Nicola (28th Sep 2012 - 10:19:27) The raw beauty of this area when the heather is in bloom; the sight of buzzards hovering overhead; the woodpeckers bobbing over the grassland; the glimpses of snakes (I have seen at least 5 adders this year) in the long grass and the rabbits leaping in and out of their burrow in the distance marks out this space as something precious, worth preserving and keeping as it stands. To spoil this with golf buggies, little balls and the inevitable cultivation and structuring that will surround whatever small area is set aside for commercial reasons as "heath land" almost feels like desecration. To talk of stopping local job creation, when all that will be required is more hours for the current grounds men, seems out of proportion to the reality that will occur. The development creep that began with holiday housing at Old Thorns will not stop at this and the site will inevitably become more cultivated to meet the business needs of the hotel as offering first class golfing capability. The approach of golfers to walkers will ultimately prevent access to this area by the people of Liphook. Please do not allow this to happen.

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - Darren (29th Sep 2012 - 08:51:53) This application has been in before and previously rejected so hopefully will be again, which I will be very happy with. If you wish to object I might suggest you study the plans carefully as I feel that most people believe the proposed Golf Course is on the "Weavers Down" that we all enjoy walking on with family, friends etc. If you study the plans you will find it is much further southwest on land that most people don't walk on and historically has even been fenced and farmed in the past. Ensure you know the facts and word your objection accordingly.

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - David (1st Oct 2012 - 08:58:03) Just to make clear that the Ed in question is not a Greenkeeper. I would also like to say that i think some of Ed\'s comments are irresponsible and quite frankly offensive. I find it incredulous that KP has supported his comments!

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - Lynne (5th Oct 2012 - 12:21:39) Have you heard about a walk on weavers down on Sunday. Meet at the rising sun at 2 pm. It might be a good opportunity for people to get together. A ranger from the natural trust will be there to discuss the proposal.

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - peter (13th Oct 2012 - 16:47:26) I have seen many walkers, with or without dogs on the proposed new golf course but I wonder how many of those objecting to the new golf course would be up in arms if the proposal was for a new course to be built 5 miles away? Secondly, in these straightened times when many golf courses are struggling financially and some closing, is there any demand or need for yet another golf course in an area that already has 6 golf courses - Petersfield, Liphook, Old Thorns, Cowdray, Blackmoor and Blacknest? At least it is not public money at risk!?

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - dee smith (14th Oct 2012 - 09:58:48) yesterday I was up on Weavers Down and found two men riding little trails bikes around the heathland at the viewpoint. When I pointed out there was no permission to do it they asked who the owners were. I said that was irrelevant as the site was an SSSI and therefore the owners could not give permission without breaking the law and that were doing the same. They said thanks for letting them know and went on their way. The van they were using had the name of Corolla Landscapes on it. So if anyone else sees that van up there can they remind them that they know there is no permission for bikes.

Re: threat to open access land near Liphook - TBD (26th Oct 2012 - 14:56:36) I see some sad and selfish individual has removed some of the SDNP notices on Weaver Down. Clearly too late as the closing date for objections is in the next day or so.

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home