Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

Timpsons Pod Refusal - Jon (19th Jul 2024 - 13:10:00) EHDC has refused planning for the pod & signage. (From EHDC website, decided 18/07/24). The Planning Authority REFUSES Planning Permission for the following reason(s): 1. The ancillary retail pod by virtue of its siting is considered a dominant feature upon entry to the site and it is considered that the pod appears out of place and incongruous in this location. There is no landscaping to soften the impact on the pod and the pod is bulky and not considered sympathetic to the setting or reflect the built form of the surrounding development. Overall the pod does not make a positive contribution to the overall appearance of the area, contrary to Policy CP29 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy, and the provisions of the NPPF. The Planning Authority REFUSES Advertisement Consent for the following reason(s): 1. It is concluded that the advertising signage by reason of their size, siting,form, illumination and prominent location would unacceptably detract from the visual amenity of the area and appear visually incongrouous and imposing in their setting and be contrary to Policy CP29 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy, Saved Policy HE3 of the EHDLP:Second Review, the requirements of the Advertisement Regulations and the Council's adopted advertisement guidelines. Guessing Sainsbury's will probably appeal this.

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - M (19th Jul 2024 - 16:58:55) That's the right decision for the right reasons. I feel vindicated for bringing this to the attention of Liphook Talkback, big business running rough shot over planning laws. Don't forget that "James Timpson" is now a Lord with political influence thanks to Sir Kier Starmer, so that just shows that all Politicians, no matter their colour, believe in one law for them and one law for others. It might be Sainsburys who have applied for permission, and been refused, but it's at the behest of Timpsons, and ultimately it's owner. Just because he does "good deeds" doesn't mean he shouldn't follow the rules..... in fact considering he employs ex offenders he should be doubly conscious of the laws of the land. Hopefully EHDC will take enforcement action and get the Pod removed, either permanently or to a much more suitable position.

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - Pb (19th Jul 2024 - 17:50:02) Good for local business.. Sainsburys have gone ahead without permission and need to be pegged back...

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - C (19th Jul 2024 - 19:35:54) It’s interesting isn’t it. Sewage is being poured into seas and rivers. Nearly 39,000 people have died in Gaza. Animal cruelty is on the rise. A quarter of all schoolchildren are on free school meals. Climate change is irreparably damaging our planet. An insane meglomaniac (and convicted criminal) is poised to be the leader of the free world again….Our NHS is on its knees. Can’t say a Timpsons kiosk in a supermarket car park is keeping me up at night but hey, each to their own.

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - Grape (19th Jul 2024 - 21:40:45) @C Just because this is a local Liphook forum that should be concerned about local issues such as violation of planning regulations - does not mean you can spout out a string of irrelevant international fallacies. Your Gaza nonsense: Precisely what real authority counted 39,000? Killed precisely by whom? How many of them were murderous combatants? Let's say 39,000 to keep you happy. 39,000 and still the Palestinians (backed by Iran and Labour) would not lay down arms, and would not release the hostages. Yes, the Gaza people need to be freed from their leadership. Take that to your Free Palestine hypocritic hate march. The most extreme, unaffordable and impoverishing action UK could ever take on carbon emissions would never make a dent on the global trend. Take up your fight with China, India and the Third World and then you could call yourself a somewhat less misguided climate warrior. The NHS is broken, pouring more money would only aggravate that trend. Same goes to "free" school meals. NHS money and school meals money is NOT free. You might be on to something with the sewage pollution. No idea what substance there is for your obscure claim regarding animal cruelty. Start another thread if you like, a good name would be 'Confusing misinformation irrelevant to Liphook'. But this one is a local thread, on a local chat that brings up more substantiated claims than your irrelevant untruths.

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - C (20th Jul 2024 - 08:14:50) @Grape. I would type out a full reply but alas am too tired after having spent all night awake worrying about the Timpsons kiosk.

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - D (20th Jul 2024 - 09:18:16) C, I too am tired having been up all night worrying about the Timpson shed (I'm hoping it may be for sale, we'll see) so I'll only address some of your points. Gaza, had they not attacked Israel in the first place, these deaths would not be happening. Gaza declared war, Gaza is the aggressor, please don't try and convince us they are the victim. A quarter of children are on free school meals? All the families I know who claim free school meals all have parents who smoke a lot, have huge expensive televisions, and guess what? They don't work, not they can't work, they don't. Maybe parents re-evaluating their priorities might bring the number of free school meals claimants down. A lunatic about to lead the free world? He didn't do a bad job last time. What in your opinion makes him a lunatic? Holding out the hand of friendship to North Korea? Defending his own borders against an endless line of immigrants walking straight into his country and depriving hard working tax payers access to public services and housing? Nothing wrong in that.

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - J (20th Jul 2024 - 09:44:42) Back to the Timpsons pod... I wonder what happens now? I guess they will appeal the decision. I don't have an issue with it particularly (I mean it's in a supermarket carpark anyway) but I've always thought it was the wrong side of the zebra crossing in the car park anyway as it means pedestrians heading towards Sainsburys are not seen by car drivers until they pop out from behind it or peer around it to check for traffic. Maybe they will move it and get approval?

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - D (20th Jul 2024 - 10:01:06) Interesting how this business apparently operating without the relevant permissions hasn't produced the bitterness which was aimed at the Longmoor Road layby mechanics. Maybe Liphook sees middle class businessman operating without the relevant permissions more favourably than working class businessmen.

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - Local (20th Jul 2024 - 10:43:10) I think it’s gone of thread a bit . The obvious thing is the pod is situated illegally. If any other business in the village did a similar thing ie hang a flag out or put a sign up or something they would be jumped on very quickly that’s the point. Sainsburys have broken the law and in my opinion it’s an inappropriate building stuck right there. Same as them allowing the camper van to park on their property any one else would be taken to task ie travelers sites etc . One law for one and another for everyone else.

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - M (20th Jul 2024 - 10:54:18) C... I take it all the things you mention are keeping you awake at night? Can assure you that Timpsons Pod in no way keeps me awake at night, and definitely all the left leaning rhetoric you spout doesn't either. I was told to always concern myself with the things you can influence, worrying about a conflict thousands of miles away and an election that we have no vote on is ridiculous in my opinion, but your choice if you want to worry about it. As a local resident I can have an opinion on this situation and I have the opportunity to voice it and make my views known to the relevant authority, thankfully they agreed with me but we'll wait and see what happens to the illegally sited Pod now, knowing Sainsburys and Timpsons they will appeal and do nothing, having already traded from the place all year taking business away from local enterprises.

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - Grape (20th Jul 2024 - 10:57:15) Here here Local. I agree regarding off-topic dribble by C, and agree that to me it appears the planning laws have been unevenly applied on this kiosk, if so then it is very unjust.

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - AF (20th Jul 2024 - 16:35:15) I agree that the pod is in the wrong place it should be next to the shop, it is in both Alton and Farnham. Also Timpsons could set up in the old cafe area no permission needed. And lastly if you are doing something that needs permission should you not get the permission first.

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - Ian (20th Jul 2024 - 17:49:05) Oh C, you’re so virtuous. I’m humbled and from now on, I will just look at the world beyond Liphook

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - A local (20th Jul 2024 - 22:39:27) Actually comparisons and the liberal use of similes are fairly well recognised tools of speech, it's fairly standard to say 'with all going on in the world...' when referencing something fairly minor that everybody is getting het up about, similarly 'in the great scheme of things...' Sure, the pod has failed planning and should be resited, but it didn't operate illegally, because it utilised the planning system exactly as the system is set up to operate, you can apply for planning at any time either before, during or after build, if they didn't want you to be able to make those choices, they wouldn't enshrine those processes in law. Beyond the look and prominent location of the pod which could be rectified, I wonder, is it anything to do with the owners liberal outlook and especially his willingness to give so many of those who have erred a second chance that has worried the villagers, if so I'm thinking people should maybe 'get out more' because 'its a big world out there' and 'a lot worse happens at sea!!'

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - C (21st Jul 2024 - 09:26:20) I’m now losing sleep over “D” thinking Trump didn’t do a bad job first time around…Impossible to even begin to form a response to that. What a time to be alive. Gotta go. Heading to Timpsons to get some keys cut.

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - Local (21st Jul 2024 - 10:02:56) So C you don’t support local businesses then the shop in station road cuts keys and probably is having tuff time because of Timpsons never mind another shop will close.

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - Grape (21st Jul 2024 - 10:55:08) Woke people hate local culture if the majority are white, slightly traditional people. They view our local concerns as: Racist, imperialist and generally backward. They happily put internationalism before home affairs. They also tend to occasionally be delicate snowflakes who become traumatised by reality and demand paid time off work (if they work) to recover. How well would C fit into that misguided crowd?

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - C (22nd Jul 2024 - 10:33:39) All accurate (and proudly so) Grape. Apart from the paid time off. Work 45 hours per week and not had a sick day since 2021.

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - Paul2 (22nd Jul 2024 - 13:03:48) C and others who hold similar views are the product of a generation trained as activists. They have been prepared by our educational institutions and woke organisations, who have convinced them that everything about their culture and country is bad and to be ashamed off. Activists don't need facts - mere feelings are enough to trigger them. They dismiss fact as lies. It doesn't matter what triggers them - they are prepared to be incandescently enraged and spring into angry demonstration. Ah, the tolerant left! What's laughable is that the 'cause' is irrelevant to them. It could be the politics of a rogue state 5,000 miles away. A TikTok reel misinforming about history 600 years ago. The plight of frogs. Meat Someone identifying as a furball. They are unthinking, mentally vacant drones. You just wind them up, and off they go!

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - Paul2 (5th Jan 2025 - 16:38:51) I've just been checking on the status of the PP appeal for the Timpson's pod at Sainsburys. As people will know, it was built and installed without planning permission. PP was refused, and Timpson's / Sainsburys are now appealing. If I decided to put a 15m2 retail hut on my drive I'd expect a visit from EDHC AND the police frankly. It would be breaking the law, for which there are consequences. Timpson's and Sainsburys seem to feel the law doesn't apply to them - that's the crux of their appeal, it boils down to "we know it shouldn't be there, but we think it will earn us money so please bend the law for us". This is similar to how Timpson's have managed to obtain retrospective PP for pods elsewhere. Build them, ignore PP, get refused, appeal. It's not right, and we should not be supporting Timpson's who are ignoring the law to make money.

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - er (5th Jan 2025 - 18:42:31) Paul2, the police aren't particularly interested in council planning disputes, only in keeping the peace. You and I have the same legal right to erect a structure on our own land and then apply for planning permission, the only caveat being it could be costly if then you later need to knock it down, but it's written in the rules and many, usually rich, stupid or arrogant people have tried, for big businesses it makes commercial sense, knowing they can string out the appeals processes long enough and bamboozle or cow councils with expensive lawyers, so it's a gamble with all the cards stacked in their favour, it's how democracy works and all rubber stamped by our governments.

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - Local (5th Jan 2025 - 21:26:44) Yes er our stupid government. And don’t mention our EHDC completely useless. All they want to do is stamp on the ones that can’t fight back. The country has gone to pot .

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - liz (6th Jan 2025 - 11:15:18) If the pod is refused permission where do I take my shoes to be repaired?

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - Paul2 (6th Jan 2025 - 16:32:38) @ER, I agree and clearly my point is hypothetical. But it's correct to use an analogy that I'd expect the Council and Police to be involved if I set up a retail pod on my drive, ignored PP and carried on trading. It's almost as if there's now two tier planning permission at work. Large corporations can do what they like, you and I on the other hand would be instantly made an example of.

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - C (6th Jan 2025 - 22:22:40) Just had keys cut there in 3 mins-fab!

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - Keith Birch (7th Jan 2025 - 10:07:43) Let’s deny the village a useful asset because of our poor planning system, denial not helping with other options

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - M (7th Jan 2025 - 16:52:22) Personally I have no objection to a Timpsons at Sainsburys but I am angry at the way Sainsburys installed the Pod before they even submitted planning, and Timpsons have been trading ever since, even when the planning application was refused. A whole year has passed and EHDC have taken no enforcement action, even though they were fully aware what was going on. Sainsburys have appealed the refusal so Timpsons carry on trading in an illegally sited Pod. The Pod would be much better located nearer to the main store either to the left or the right and if that had been done then I suspect they would of obtained planning permission. As others have said it appears there's one rule for big business and one rule for Joe public.

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - Sam (7th Jan 2025 - 18:54:47) Astounding that so many people want their views validated on the positioning of a business pod on another businesses car park which is private property. If your not a member of either Sainsbury’s MGMT or Timpson MGMT then your just little old Joe Public… ie meaningless and irrelevant when it comes to the positioning of the pod. Planning is a separate matter, am not commenting on that. But crying about the position then climb back into your hole as that is none of your concern business or let alone influence.

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - Paul2 (8th Jan 2025 - 10:48:49) For the avoidance of any doubt - my issue with the Timpson's pod is the blatant disregard for planning processes in the pursuit of corporate greed. Not what services are offered.

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - Local (9th Jan 2025 - 10:52:52) It seems that local authorities turn a blind eye to illegal goings on ie using the lay-by in longmoor road for running a business, dumping vehicles in the avenue, Timpsons illegal building, if a local business puts up a sign or something like that without permission they are taking to the cleaners straight away. It seems EHDC and police don’t want to know when it’s big business or people dumping vehicles etc .

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - er (9th Jan 2025 - 23:06:17) Presumably, I'm just guessing here, if they don't get retrospective planning, they could just move the pod around the car park and apply all over again as a new application, I'm wondering how long that could go on for😂

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - M (10th Jan 2025 - 12:26:22) Good old Sam telling us all what we should think. Actually Sam where the Pod is positioned is of concern to some people, myself included. I'm allowed an opinion, just like you, and the English Planning Rules allow me to voice my opinion through Planning Applications, by giving the facility to make a comment. As EHDC refused the Planning Application it would seem that some of the comments made might of been valid ones. Perhaps you should "get back into your hole" and allow others their opinions and views?

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - Paul (10th Jan 2025 - 15:01:55) at least its given someone a job which liphook needs more business needed and give local jobs to local people

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - Paul2 (16th Jan 2025 - 12:21:26) @Paul - and that makes breaking the (planning) law okay then, in your view? Strange view to take!

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - Charlie (16th Jan 2025 - 16:18:52) I am a little puzzled as to why so many people have a "down" on Timpsons. Yes they have been refused planning permission and are continuing to trade, but they haven't broken the law. They will need to apply for retrospective planning permission which i understand they are doing. Applying for retrospective permission is extremely common as anyone can check by going on to EHDC's website and yet no-one else either past or present in the process of doing this has attracted the unnecessary attention and criticism that Timpsons has.

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - M (16th Jan 2025 - 17:13:11) Sainsburys (on behalf of Timpsons) applied for planning permission after they had already sited the Pod (it wasn't retrospective, just late) which was refused. Sainsburys have appealed and that is awaiting decision. I personally have nothing against Timpsons but I do have an issue as to where the Pod is sited, as I feel EHDC have too, hence their planning refusal. It annoys me that Sainsburys/Timpsons can continue trading for over a year in a (poorly located in my opinion) Pod that has no planning permission and EHDC seem incapable of taking enforcement action. Planning Rules appear to not matter if you're a Multi National Business?

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - Charlie (17th Jan 2025 - 14:53:56) M Timpsons are perfectly entitled to trade pending the appeal. As I said in my previous post this happens all the time, not only to businesses or as you call them Multi National Businesses but all applicants who appeal against a planning application refusal. I think it is very misleading for you to imply that there is one rule for individuals and one rule for businesses. Mis-information through social media is very dangerous. If you are still in any doubt that the same rules do not apply to everyone go to EHDC's website and you will see for yourself. I would also like to know what are your objections to the siting of the Timpson's pod?

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - M (17th Jan 2025 - 17:35:18) Charlie, I have previously noted my objections to the location of the Pod on the EHDC Planning portal, along with others, and it is one of the reasons EHDC refused the application, and there I believe they are valid. Read all the comments on the application to find out. No disinformation from me, everything I mentioned is either fact or my considered opinion, sorry you don't agree.

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - Charlie (18th Jan 2025 - 10:13:14) M I had already read all the documents appertaining to this refusal including the Parish Council’s comments and cannot see any comment from you personally so I am very interested as why you personally object to this application. With regard to the comments by the Parish Council I do not agree with them. 1. Their comment that the permanent loss of 4 car parking spaces would have an adverse effect on the availability of parking spaces. I have shopped at Sainsburys since its inception at many different times of day and have never not been able to find a parking space. 2. Their comment that Timpsons' services would have a detrimental effect on other businesses in the area. Since when was competition detrimental? If you go down that premise, and it would not be democratic, it would mean that if there was one shop in an area offering a service that would preclude any other shop offering the same service. 3. Their comment that the structure would increase the risks of accidents. I do not think that this structure to date has caused any accidents – only time will tell. Lastly my main concern is that there are people targetting Timpsons for doing exactly what hundreds of applicants have done in the past and that is appeal a decision and in the meantime as in Timpsons' case, continue to trade. There is nothing illegal in that at all.

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - M (18th Jan 2025 - 14:04:54) Charlie, My comments are on the EHDC website so if you have read them all then you read mine. At no point have I said the word "illegal", just that I find the fact that Timpsons have been able to trade for over a year in a Pod with no planning permission as wrong. I have said I personally have no problem with Timpsons. They have every right to apply for permission to site a Pod and once approved trade as any other business. I feel the current location of the Pod is detrimental to road safety, pedestrians and the overall aesthetics to the existing street scene and wider area. I believe a far better location would be much closer to the existing store using the closest parking spaces either to the left or right of the store. I hope that explains my own view, obviously if you don't agree that's fine, we live in a democratic society and we all have a right to voice our opinion.

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - Joe (18th Jan 2025 - 19:40:17) Everyone has the right to their own opinion but for my part wherever the pod is sited, there is no other business in Liphook which offers immediate shoe repairs so where did the Parish Council get the opinion that they are taking business away from local traders?

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - Charlie (20th Jan 2025 - 14:39:25) M Thank you for your post. No you did not use the word “illegal” but you did say and I quote that “I find the fact that Timpsons have been able to trade for over a year in a Pod with no planning permission as wrong” which statement to me implies that they are doing something that is not right ergo against the law/illegal. You also say in a previous post that “It annoys me that Sainsburys/Timpsons can continue trading for over a year in a (poorly located in my opinion) Pod that has no planning permission and EHDC seem incapable of taking enforcement action.” You clearly do not understand the process of enforcement and your sentence is a criticism of EHDC who have done nothing wrong because they are not able to take enforcement action at the moment. The reason for this is because enforcement can only be processed when a structure/building becomes illegal and it only becomes illegal when the application for said structure/building has been refused by EHDC. However if the applicant having received the refusal from EHDC then immediately launches an Appeal, as Timpsons have done, until the Appeal is heard and a decision made, EHDC cannot take enforcement action. If the Appeal is lost and the structure/ building is not removed then EHDC can start the enforcement process. In this case if Timpsons lose their Appeal and continue trading they will be in breach of planning laws and enforcement action would be taken. If however Timpsons win the Appeal they will be able to continue trading insitu. I hope this makes everything clear.

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - M (20th Jan 2025 - 17:31:45) Thanks Charlie for that insightful comment, but to be honest I knew all of that, hence why I never said anything was "illegal" and that EHDC were "incapable" of taking any enforcement. I chose my words carefully so I think it shows I know what I'm talking about, so no need to try and belittle me but thanks for the explanation. My issue is with the location of the Pod, not the fact a Pod is in the carpark and Timpsons are the user. The planning law is an ass, as far as I'm concerned, and that has always been my gripe. Sainsburys/Timpsons are taking advantage of it (even though they spout much rhetoric about being responsible and inclusive) and EHDC have no teeth to bring those that take the P*** to task. Happens in all walks of life unfortunately but it doesn't make it right!

Re: Timpsons Pod Refusal - Charlie (21st Jan 2025 - 16:09:55) M Thank you for your response and my intent was not to belittle you in any way. If you think you were then I apologise. I thought you were, mistakenly so it seems now, blaming EHDC for seeming to be incapable of taking enforcement action. If you had said something along the lines that EHDC seem to be incapable of taking enforcement action "because they are not allowed to do this while there is an Appeal pending" it would have clarified what you meant. You say that the EHDC "have no teeth to bring those that take the p*** to task." That is not their fault - they do not make the planning laws, they implement them. Making the laws is in the gift of National Government called The National Planning Policy Framework the NPPF, so please don't blame EHDC. To go back to my original post Timpsons are not doing anything that many, many other applicants/businesses have done in the past, present and probably the future. Yes in your opinion it might be wrong but in that case why don't you and other objectors target them as well. At least Timpsons are offering an excellent service.

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home