Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

SDNP/24/01695/FUL Planning. - AR (29th May 2024 - 16:20:27) Please note. This application has been put in, very quietly in April and was validated on 16th May. Wanting to turn part of Iron Hill into a SANG. This is to try and get permission to build on the chicken farm in Chiltlee Lane. SDNP/24/01695/FUL We can already access this area, so how ludicrous. Please comment on the EHDC website.

Re: SDNP/24/01695/FUL Planning. - D (29th May 2024 - 19:36:11) I seem to remember the same events by the same people with Radford Park. Farmers custodians of the countryside? MY A***!!!

Re: SDNP/24/01695/FUL Planning. - Jo (29th May 2024 - 23:13:06) D - landowners do not equate to farmers. Most landowners round here are businessmen who know and care very little about the countryside. Farmers are hard-working people who care passionately about the environment whilst growing food for the rest of us to eat. Never confuse the two.

Re: SDNP/24/01695/FUL Planning. - D (30th May 2024 - 08:28:23) Jo, the owner of Chiltley Farm, who I know from his attendance at a Parish Council planning committee meeting five years ago pertaining to the 600 homes application which he has an interest in, described himself as a "simple hardworking farmer". The 600 homes application suggested an area of ancient woodland off the old A3 as a SANG. As usual, rather than focus on the subject matter of posts on this website, we have people nit-picking over petty detail. A detail of which on this occasion, you are completely wrong. Look how many farms in Liphook have been sold off for housing over the past hundred years, the most recent being on Longmoor Road.

Re: SDNP/24/01695/FUL Planning. - Richard (30th May 2024 - 16:20:07) Surely a large housing developer like Bloor Homes wouldn’t be doing anything underhand here. A large housing development company handing over an area for green space doesn’t sound a bit dodge. And also they advised on their planning application that there was no relevant applications or appeals on this site. I’m guessing that Bloor Homes will be sponsoring the Carnival this year given that Taylor Wimpey + Redrow have finished buying off our trust worthy officials.

Re: SDNP/24/01695/FUL Planning. - M (30th May 2024 - 18:04:08) Just for clarity this application is to turn the Iron Hill Forestry area into a SANG, to comply with planning requirements for the proposed 100 houses at Chiltley Farm (which is still a live planning application with East Hants District Council). Those who know Iron Hill will know what a beautiful natural area it is, and the proposals in no way improve or enhance what is already a lovely tranquil area. What also appears wrong with this proposal is that the site is within the South Downs National Park, so has extra protection from major development, it isn't even in the parish of Bramshott and Liphook and it can only be accessed by car. It seems strange that the developer is forcing their proposal inside the SDNP when they should be providing it on site, or at least adjacent to their proposed housing scheme. The application can be found on the SDNP website (not EHDC as it's not in East Hampshire) via the following link: planningpublicaccess.southdowns.gov.uk/online-applications/centralDistribution.do?caseType=Application&keyVal=SCEFNKTUG4700 For anyone who wants to keep a lovely natural area inside the SDNP as it is I implore you to take a look and object by 13th June.

Re: SDNP/24/01695/FUL Planning. - Local (30th May 2024 - 20:38:21) The EHDC also tried to make RADFORD PARK into a sangs so the chicken farm could say it was theirs within their distance also it could have been used by the popes field development lucky the liphook community stood firm at the council meeting and blocked it . EHDC will do anything to get the chicken farm development passed yet they condemn it in the first place does that tell you something. It’s the worst place to build houses in liphook.

Re: SDNP/24/01695/FUL Planning. - D (30th May 2024 - 22:57:59) This SANG business baffles me. How can a developer point to a bit of land, which has been there long before that developer came along and say they are giving us something which has always been there anyway?

Re: SDNP/24/01695/FUL Planning. - Joe (31st May 2024 - 00:09:25) I think the reasoning behind this is that there is not enough extra land left at the chicken farm once the 100 houses are built to make a sangs but what has been pointed out is true it is hardly new land because people have been walking at iron hill for ages.

Re: SDNP/24/01695/FUL Planning. - D (31st May 2024 - 07:30:14) It would be interesting to know who the applicant is, doesn't Iron Hill belong to the Forestry Comission?

Re: SDNP/24/01695/FUL Planning. - joe (31st May 2024 - 08:20:39) It does not matter who the applicant is in planning terms as if permission is granted it becomes a publicly owned space I think managed eventually by the local authority and those residents of the new houses use it for recreation, but the reality of bigger sangs is the wider public use it too. I found a sangs near Lewes where the houses had been built the other side of a busy road and the developer had made a footpath and tunnel underneath the road from the new estate, but access was available by car.

Re: SDNP/24/01695/FUL Planning. - Eric Benson (31st May 2024 - 09:01:57) This SANG application is an attempt by the applicant Bloor Homes to get round the planning requirements for its pending application for 100 homes on the Chiltley Lane chicken farm site. It is a requirement for a development of that size that a “Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace”, to give it its proper title, is provided to make up for the loss of habitat if the development was permitted. The previous application by the same developer for the same site, turned down on appeal many years ago, at one stage suggested Radford Park as a SANG site. That failed due to proximity, more than a mile away from the site by the nearest road routes, and already used for recreational and conservation purposes. The Iron Hill site, part of a larger plot owned or leased by the Forestry Commission, has for many years been used for public recreational access. There are lots of paths and walkways through there, several public footpaths and a car park suitable for fifteen cars, an extension created a few years ago from something somewhat smaller. The current SANG application offers no changes in parking provision. The site is not safely accessible on foot, and the Midhurst Road from its junction at Highfield Corner to the car park entrance in a narrow cutting with no footpath arrangement. It is simply not suitable for the purposes of the creation of a SANG. This application is a tactical ploy by the developer to get round the SANG rules for the Jubilee Lane site which is controversial in any event. The current application before East Hampshire District Council does not meet the necessary criteria, notwithstanding that the application was submitted more than twelve months ago. If permitted, it would appear to set an interesting precedent – creation of a SANG some miles from an application site in a planning authority area A to support an application requiring a SANG in planning authority B’s area where the latter can have no control in planning terms for future use. In terms of South Downs National Park Authority’s planning remit it adds nothing, there is no proposed benefit such as a payment under CIL rules, as said above site is already well used for recreational purposes, it is not readily accessible foot etc., etc. As an aside, it should noted that the Chiltley Farm site features within the draft East Hampshire District plan, now working its way through consultation processes. The notes in support of documentation produced by EHDC for this plan show the Chiltley Lane chicken farm site has a “possible” for future development. This is notwithstanding that it does not meet the EHDC criteria for inclusion, which specifically excludes from its definition of brownfield sites any with a current use as agricultural. This Sang application is entirely about supporting the controversial application to build 100 houses on the south eastern edge of the village which can only be easily accessed by car, one which will place strains upon the infrastructure in that part of the village, in particular the sewage system, already struggling with no proposals for any upgrades. The Iron Hill site can only be used for the SANG purposes with the consent of the landowner, planning permission does not require that owner to make any changes to its land. If possible, please object to this application by writing to the SDNPA before the closing date in June. Regards Eric

Re: SDNP/24/01695/FUL Planning. - D (31st May 2024 - 12:22:45) I'm intrigued that this desired SANG is in another planning authority's area. Might as well be in Scotland.

Re: SDNP/24/01695/FUL Planning. - K (5th Jun 2024 - 16:53:57) Just seen this planning application. Can't believe that this development should be allowed to go ahead. Iron Hill is already a lovely quiet place to walk, either with your dog or with the kids, so why should it be hijacked by a developer so they can build houses outside the national park? I've submitted my objection and would implore others to do the same before the closing date of 13th June. This really shouldn't be allowed.

Re: SDNP/24/01695/FUL Planning. - Eric Benson (10th Jun 2024 - 21:27:14) Don't forget to lodge your objections by Wednesday 13th June! Regards Eric

Re: SDNP/24/01695/FUL Planning. - local (10th Jun 2024 - 23:46:23) Or support, aren't we supposed to be crying out for millions of new homes, one of the reasons Labour will slam dunk this election is the promise of millions more homes outside of the cities, that's out here in the sticks, over the next few years. Surely we want them all don't we? I've been assured the public believe it will make housing affordable for British kids, but I wonder if it really will, with over a million new arrivals every year and climbing? In the meantime surely we're not standing in the path of the bulldozers are we, change, moving on, progress and all that!

Re: SDNP/24/01695/FUL Planning. - Eric Benson (19th Jun 2024 - 08:25:20) It seems there are lots of objections to this application , to include our own parish council's planning committee, by a unanimous vote. Is this application now dead in the water? Regards Eric

Re: SDNP/24/01695/FUL Planning. - Joe (19th Jun 2024 - 10:40:47) I think the SDNPA have to go through the usual planning process. Not sure but I think iron hill may come under West Sussex anyway, so our Parish council may not be considered that influential, compared to the comments from Milland Parish council who also object. The deciding factor is whether the proposed SANGS is good for the SDNPA- in the same way Eric, they would decide that 600 houses in Bohunt Land also in the park is probably not a good idea for the SDNPA area.

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home