Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

Liphook after the tunnel? - jay (21st Jul 2007 - 10:52:36) When the tunnel is opened, what will the future hold? There is speculation in the press that Liphook is likely to benefit from the prosperity that easier access will offer. If this is so, the urgent need for more housing in the South of England will almost inevitably lead to more development here. Surely, this must lead to more traffic in the village, not less?

Re: Liphook after the tunnel? - purplecurly (21st Jul 2007 - 15:01:57) I think you are right. It is a very long tunnel and the Liphook junction is the first turn off once you emerge. I have serious concerns over parking issues for one. If you pop into the village it is very difficult to park, especially if the pub is chained off. Where is all this \'through traffic\' going to stop if the only place to park is sainsburys. The shops in Station road should be signposted much more clearly and the fact that there is free parking next to these shops should be up in big neon lights... How else is anyone apart from Sainsburys going to gain? PC

Re: Liphook after the tunnel? - jay (22nd Jul 2007 - 00:02:29) Bearing in mind the frequent gridlock of the mini roundabouts, I wondered if a lot of the present traffic is caused by drivers seeking to find a way to avoid the Hindhead bottleneck and joining the A3 south of the congestion? Or is it mainly local people going about their normal business? I wonder if a one way system has ever been considered around the triangle formed by the Portsmouth, Midhurst and Station Roads? This might help traffic to flow more smoothly. But it wouldn't help the parking problem.

Re: Liphook after the tunnel? - Freddie Dawkins (22nd Jul 2007 - 10:19:03) Some years ago, after Sainsbury's opened and their management consultant traffic surveys justified the fact that we didn't need an extra relief road as traffic levels had not changed substantially! - there was talk of some of the Bohunt Manor land being purchased by Hampshire County Council. The outline idea was that a new road would be built from Portsmouth Road (a bit after The Links, through BH land and round the back of Bohunt School, onto Longmoor Road). The idea had some good things going for it, especially for through traffic wanting to access the A3 at Griggs Green. I don't know what happened at County level and of course ownership of the land has changed hands several times in the past few years...but maybe it's something that should be reconsidered?

Re: Liphook after the tunnel? - sue (24th Jul 2007 - 10:12:25) Hate to say it but do you not think the increased traffic recently is a mixture of rat running and the much bigger Sainsburys - which has done a very wide spread ad for their 'superstore'? Perhaps that is why when they were first here it was intended to be a 'village' size one. Most of the traffic goes from the square to the Haslemere Road direction (not down the Portsmouth Road).

Re: Liphook after the tunnel? - Freddie Dawkins (24th Jul 2007 - 11:10:12) Sue - Yes, I'd agree. But we have to bear in mind what Liphook was like before the A3 dual carriageway was built; then after it opened, then after Sainsbury's opened. We've have the estate built on what was the OSU, adding, I guess, 200 + homes. Plus all the other building we've seen such as down in Station Road behind the Railway pub, the Lark Rise development with 60+ dwellings.. You'll remember when traffic used to just disappear mid-afternoon on Saturday! The Square used to be incredibly quiet for the rest of the weekend. Also, if a traffic survey was understaken now, I'd be interested to know how far people drive to use Sainsbury's (Sainsbury's would know this from their Nectar card users, which would give a fair picture of miles driven, geo spread etc etc). I'm sure they use this info a lot in their marketing and how they decide to stock? What's really worrying is what will happen next. Will any part of the Bohunt land be used for housing development? Will backland (garden) developments start happening as the Government is proposing? There are proposals to build 11-13 dwellings in some parts of back gardens around the village. Is that desirable? Is such housing density really sustainable without major infrastructure improvements? Will the District Council and County Council sort out a proper 10 year Development Plan and work with the utility companies and developers - do we have one? Lots of questions!

Re: Liphook after the tunnel? - sue (24th Jul 2007 - 18:53:27) Freddie Yes to all your points - and unfortunately it will only get worse, is there practical solutions being discussed by any 'bodies' to date?. On the question of Sainsburys giving figures based on the nectar cards - forget it - their answer was 'that is data protection' and not for public knowledge. Not what I understood data protection to be about at all. they are very secretative and have been from day one of the traffic implications their store would have. We really should try a consertive effort to try to find ways of easing the conjection and I think Jay has a good point - about a possible one way system.

Re: Liphook after the tunnel? - Niall (25th Jul 2007 - 09:36:45) Wouldn't Sainsbury be required to respond to a Freedom of Information Act application to release data on Nectar usage; especially as there is a public interest case for understanding the traffic impact of their customer's activity?

Re: Liphook after the tunnel? - Stephen (25th Jul 2007 - 10:12:10) IMHO the school run has a lot to answer for any traffic problems. I had to laugh the other day when my bike was overtaken by not one, not two, not three, but four Chelsea Tractors in a line with Mummy, kiddy and labrador in each. PS Yes I am a sanctimoneous, morally-superior, carbon-free cyclist

Re: Liphook after the tunnel? - S (25th Jul 2007 - 10:44:51) I can't help feeling cyclists cause more problems than 4x4's. They don't know the highway code or feel they need to know it, can't actually cycle in a straight line without wobbling, ride two a breast and cause people more hassle than their lack of carbon footprint saves the environment. Heard a nice interview on the radio with a science professor the other day who claimed that all the PC views on recycling and/or the damage we do the ozone layer was complete garbage. He alleges that in the past few hundred years the level of deteriation to the ozone has not changed in the slightest and the PC people of this world should study it before bleating on about it so much then they may change their views and actually use the same bin for all their rubbish. It's about time someone told it as it is.

Re: Liphook after the tunnel? - Chris (25th Jul 2007 - 13:23:52) Except S what you have told is not how it is at all. This science professor you quote is not the only source of opinion. Yes, perhaps one more cyclist and one less 4x4 may not make a difference but pursuading a whole nation like the Chinese or the US to turn their generators down a notch or to use less fossil fuel will. And regardless of the ozone layer and the ever more gaping holes within it, what would you prefer, avid recycling or so much local landfill that we could not move for rubbish?

Re: Liphook after the tunnel? - jay (25th Jul 2007 - 15:32:40) I was interested to read Freddy Dawkin’s comments about a possible relief road through Bohunt land from the Links to Longmore Road. All of the County’s budget has been spent on the new tunnel, so this proposal must be dead in the water – unless, of course, the Council exploits ‘planning gain’ when granting permission for new housing. Developers have purchased options to buy every bit of land around the village, so they might pay for traffic improvements – even, dare I say it, cycle lanes so that Stephen won’t be hassled by 4 x 4s any more.

Re: Liphook after the tunnel? - Stephen (25th Jul 2007 - 15:52:13) Oh dear S, your arguments are so facile and not worth dignifying with any response. Still I'm intrigued to know how well YOU know the Highway Code.

Re: Liphook after the tunnel? - S (25th Jul 2007 - 16:23:36) I have no idea what the highway code is and I have a bike but I don't wobble but the bike does.

Re: Liphook after the tunnel? - rob (25th Jul 2007 - 16:35:42) That there will be change in Liphook after the opening of the Tunnel in 2011 is without doubt. Liphook is the next settlement beyond the Tunnel entrance and inevitably this will be bring new jobs and housing and Liphook will grow with it. The importance thing is that we have a say in how and where and the manner in which this development is carried out. It is interesting to note that people are increasingly aware of the looming energy crisis and indeed the entries above refer to this. Informed opinion reckons that North Sea gas will be depleted within 15 years and some of you will be familiar with the Peak Oil supply scenario, which claims that between now and about 30 years the world's oil supply will start decline to a point where major powers will be going to war over the reserves (this is probably already happening). I am sure all your readers will be aware that this serious problem will be exacerbated by the growing demand for oil in the Tiger Economies in Asia, and afterall they are only aspiring to the standard of living we already enjoy. I believe society will undergo radical changes in the next 5- 25 years and it will be about local sustainability and de-centalisation and reducing reliance on fossil fuels. This may mean the nuclear option for much of our energy source, France is already 75% nuclear, but it will undoubtedly mean that we will need to live close to our places of work and that facilities and most amenities are within walking distance or accessible by public transport. So what does this all mean for the future of Liphook? We have the tremendous benefit of a main line station in the village/town and we should ensure that future growth in Liphook is planned on a sustainable basis. Local employment should be actively encouraged and promoted. East Hants DC should make conditions favourable for companies to move and set up business in our village, which the Tunnel will attract, but ultimately would be sustained by a network of efficient public transport and local labour supply. Low cost housing is needed in the village in order to encourage an holistic population mix, with young families staying in the village close to their family network. It seems that presently Liphook is in the doldrums and needs to take a step forward. The shops in Station Road are struggling to stay in business and we simply cannot afford to loose the valuable mix of small traders who add so much character to our village life, which I have to say is not helped by a large supermarket. If our village has to grow in size we should not see this in entirely negative terms, but rather a case of reaching a 'critical mass', where there is enough commercial activity to support local businesses and also a forward looking planning approach to create a truly sustainable local community.We have everything going for us, all we need is the vision to see it through for the next generations. We may even set an example for the rest of the country!

Re: Liphook after the tunnel? - Stephen (25th Jul 2007 - 17:22:25) What an excellent post, Rob If you ran for the post of Mayor of the independent city-state of Liphook then I would vote for you.

Re: Liphook after the tunnel? - Niall (25th Jul 2007 - 17:56:07) Agreed - nice post...

Re: Liphook after the tunnel? - sue (25th Jul 2007 - 19:55:51) Rob excellent - I do think that a number of these points have already been covered by many - but not so collectively delivered. I remember on a previous post about the last piece of OSU land - that as far as I was aware was earmarked for business and should remain - someone said that there was great difficulty in attracting businesses to Liphook - WHY!!. Perhaps now with the tunnel, businesses will be more interested and less housing on every single plot. Where you have an in balance in population to work - you breed social problems. Petersfield I believe has now corrected the balance by the enlargement of their Industrial Estate, more leisure facilities etc - Alton too. Liphook needs to look much harder to create it now - rather than leave it until its too late. Unfortunately many 'business' sites have already been built over and so few remain - unless EHDC stands firm on the re-development of such sites in the future. to help with the green issue there are also a number of jobs that can be done from the home, with the technology available to us (web cams, networking, telephone conferencing etc) perhaps a once a week visit to the office would be sufficient. The new 'oldies' site will have its own leisure facilities - why not the rest of us!!

Re: Liphook after the tunnel? - Freddie Dawkins (26th Jul 2007 - 00:20:45) Rob - Good post. On the remaining land at the OSU, several points: 1. It was always earmarked for employment. This was agreed when Sainsbury's bought the OSU site from the MoD. 2. Ownership of the land has changed hands several times. 3. About 2 years ago, there were plans submitted to develop the site as warehousing/factories, office block, shops and some flats. 4. The design was monstrous. Really. From memory, the plans were on display in the Parish office for a while. 5. I think the architect/developer was really just playing tactical games to try and force the District Council to grant permission. 6. That's probably why the fencing was allowed to fall down and the site to get so overgrown. I believe the District Council ordered the owner to re-erect the fencing and clean up the site. 7. A construction firm rents some of the land for storage, with agreed time limits for enetering/leaving site to minimise disturbance. 8. One idea which was proposed for the the site was to create an underground car park. This would add parking spaces out of sight and could be linked to parking at the station - which is probably a useful idea, as more people tarvel by train and want to drive to the station. 9. I'm not sure who now owns the land but I've seen no active marketing of the site except the Vail Williams sale board. 10. I wonder if the District Council should buy the land, develop it for employment and affordable housing and get the site working for the community as a whole.

Re: Liphook after the tunnel? - Niall (26th Jul 2007 - 08:19:39) Freddie, Thanks for some interesting points on the OSU site. Without wishing to put the 'cat amongst the pigeons' I notice that the new sign that has been erected at the King George's Hospital site says nothing about retirement homes - you'll recall that the developers got permission for 'market' and 'retirement' home plans when they threatened EHDC with an appeal. Assuming that the King George's site will now be a market development, aren't other developers going to insist on the OSU being devloped as a retirement facility (with all of the 'employment benefits' that brings)?

Re: Liphook after the tunnel? - Freddie Dawkins (26th Jul 2007 - 10:08:27) Niall - No idea - but when it comes to land = money, there's bound to be a developer seeking a nice profit. The pity of it is that the OSU redevelopment was allowed piecemeal, rather than as a whole.

Re: Liphook after the tunnel? - Paddy (28th Jul 2007 - 08:48:15) Many of the posts on this forum seem to express frustration about the structural imbalance in employment opportunities and local housing capacity, service provision and community facilities, as Liphook responds to the pressures of growth, such as the building of a supermarket or the opening of the new tunnel in 2011. A key aspect to promoting a more sustainable future for our community, as Rob’s post above suggests, is adopting both a local and a global perspective on social, environmenal and economic change. External pressure does affect local communities (we can carry on building on flood plains until it becomes too costly, carry on commuting until fossil fuels become prohibitively expensive) and what matters is how we in Liphook respond and how we collectively influence the future community that we wish to leave to our children and grandchildren. The immediate question is what mechanisms exist to reveal, inform and communicate the needs and wishes of the community in a responsible and effective way within decision making processes (of planning authorities, employers, developers and so on) that doesn’t leave us vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy and NIMBY-ism. Clearly, many in this forum feel excluded and even helpless in this respect. I certainly would not wish to pre-empt the collective wishes of a community, but I can address my personal impacts on the local and global environment, and indeed our thoughts have been in the public arena for well over a year – see our website http://songololotrust.blogspot.com/ . Broad support is available to communities from a range of policy, advisory and charitable organisations, to embrace more sustainable ways of living and to cope with change. As Rob and others seem to suggest above, Liphook is positioned to benefit from change to the doldrums that we currently suffer, but this is only possible if we effectively articulate a vision of a sustainable, balanced and caring community that provides for all its members and increasingly meets its own needs. Alternatively, we could just post our frustration with traffic in the town on Talkback in ten year’s time?

Re: Liphook after the tunnel? - jay (7th Aug 2007 - 10:43:38) Posts from Ron, Freddy, Niall, Paddy and others indicate that local people are well aware and articulate about problems that Liphook will face once the tunnel opens. The last review of the Local Plan was finally rubber-stamped in March 2006 – before finance for the tunnel was secured and contracts awarded. A revised draft plan is now being prepared and consultations should be taking place with a view to holding a Public Inquiry in 2008 or 2009 – at which time everyone will have an opportunity to make their opinions known to a Ministry Inspector. Concerns about the infrastructure (traffic, schools, housing, employment etc,) have been aired on these pages, but the needs of the people living to the north of Liphook may be different from those in the south. What might happen to the Station Road area that has been slipping into decay for too long? No-one can pretend that there is much chance of our changing anything – but the Inspector will be completely independent, and in the past it has been known for him to overturn the narrow, politically motivated policies of the Local authority following strong representations from residents, shopkeepers and businessmen. It is essential that we present a unified front when the time comes and do not dilute our case by airing petty grievances. Who will be our spokesperson when the time comes? I nominate Ron. [editor - I guess you mean Rob]

Re: Liphook after the tunnel? - sue (7th Aug 2007 - 22:08:03) I have a very uneasy feeling that some seeds are being planted here (there have been a number in other threads too), to pave the way for 're-development' of Station Road. What better way for moving forward with new ideas (housing), than to highlight the bad. Station Road may have its vacant shops today - but that wont last. There are many GOOD and successful business there, and with better signposting and advertising (perhaps an information board by the Millennium Hall directing visitors to station road retail area), would do wonders. I know there is a developer extremely interested in doing exactly this. Perhaps that is why the spare osu land has had the word 'shops' joined to it. Move the shops there and house Station Road.?

Re: Liphook after the tunnel? - Chris (8th Aug 2007 - 11:53:39) Sue, I hope you are wrong. To saturate the place with even more housing at the expense of infrastructure, including local trade and shops, would be awful and should be completely opposed. I have never had a great fondness for housing developers; its an industry that is rife with wide boys and crooks but we need to be wary that if these people do get a foothold, they will destroy the town/willage as we know it all for the sake of their own personal gain.

Re: Liphook after the tunnel? - barbara (8th Aug 2007 - 14:48:02) Beware when reading postings such as" Managing change" and "Liphook in the doldrums," it could be written by someone with a vested interest in property development. The answer is not always just more houses = more prosperity, as it is shown people do not always shop or work locally.

Re: Liphook after the tunnel? - liz (10th Aug 2007 - 09:08:13) I noticed a letter in this week's Liphook Herald commenting on the impact of the proposed South Downs national park and concerns that devlopemnt could be pushed from within the park to areas just outside it. Liphook would be in this position and I must say this concerns me rather more than the likely impact of the tunnel.

Re: Liphook after the tunnel? - tim (10th Aug 2007 - 19:35:23) MORE RATS!!!

Re: Liphook after the tunnel? - jay (24th Aug 2007 - 09:04:39) '85.57 acre site under spotlight' headline in the Liphook Argus dated24th August 2007. I think we could all see that one coming!

Re: Liphook after the tunnel? - Chris (24th Aug 2007 - 09:18:19) Where is this site exactly? What with this and Bohunt Manor, Liphook will be a city soon! I hope the PC are keeping a watch.

Re: Liphook after the tunnel? - helen (5th Sep 2007 - 23:41:19) So, how will the haslemere lot get onto the a3 tunnel?? will they all have to come through liphook??? surely that cant be!!

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home