Post Reply
Talkback Home

SDNP Boundary Consultation - Russ (17th Dec 2018  19:38:09) Hi Liphookians. You may not be aware but EHDC discussed, at their Council Chamber meeting last Thursday, their comment on the Governments consultation on National Parks and AONBs. A very small paragraph about it was in last week Herald on page 3. The agenda and comments from EHDC can be seen here (item 6, click on the main heading and also the notes from Cllr Evans) http://easthants.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=2428&EVT=101&DT=A The consultation info can be found at this site, along with a survey that any member of the public can complete. https://consult.defra.gov.uk/land-use/landscapes-review-call-for-evidence/ I would highly recommend that you all take a read of the above links as it is most pertinent to the situation that our Parish finds itself in, and all the issues being a split Parish it causes. Of most interest is the comment from EHDC and Cllr Evans where Bramshott and Liphook is discussed. It seems strange that such an important topic to our Parish hasn't been highlighted by either EHDC or BLPC. I'd recommend as many as possible complete the DEFRA consultation survey ASAP to put your own views forward. Unfortunately it closes on 18th December at 23.45 so you don't have much time.

Re: SDNP Boundary Consultation - helen (17th Dec 2018  21:59:44) As far as I read the consultation it is not discussing /reviewing the SDNP Boundary but a general consultation on National Parks and ANOBs nationwide. It would not mean an immediate change to the boundary of the SDNPA just because it is on a developers' wishlist.

Re: SDNP Boundary Consultation - Paul (18th Dec 2018  09:16:10) Thanks for drawing attention to this Russ, I've submitted a response. My reading - and apologies if I've misinterpreted due to haste - is that EHDC opposes extension to the SDNP boundaries in order to create further development opportunities including in Liphook - I say this because of the following extract from Cllr Evans' paper: “EHDC is opposed to any extension of the SDNP Boundaries within the District and furthermore proposes that in some locations where settlements such as Liphook, Horndean, Rowlands Castle, Clanfield and Bentley have sustainable development opportunities constrained by Park boundaries, that these boundaries be pulled back to the Parish boundaries in order to relieve these constraints.â€�

Re: SDNP Boundary Consultation - oldie (18th Dec 2018  10:32:22) I could be misinterpreting it too, but I think that means that EHDC want to 'pull back' the National Park boundaries back in certain areas including Liphook where currently 'development opportunities' are being 'constrained' by the park boundaries. In other words they want to take the southern half of Liphook out of the safety of the Park and into the arms of developers, in order to facilitate more development in those areas.

Re: SDNP Boundary Consultation - liz (18th Dec 2018  12:11:53) Wasn't there a long battle to get the part of the National Park closest to Liphook inside the National Park boundary reflecting local wishes? I'm not sure we should give this up because developers find it inconvenient. Also it rather does away with the whole point of a National Park if you move the boundaries to accommodate development which would not otherwise be allowed. Particularly with limited consultation. Thanks for the information Russ.

Re: SDNP Boundary Consultation - Charles (18th Dec 2018  14:19:37) Does Councillor Evan's live in the village? I was of the opinion that Liphook had secured all additional housing requirements to the 2028 targets., which we are yet to see the consequences of as these sites are currently being built. Great to see the environment is being protected by all the additional commuters walking to the station from the current land at the bottom of Station Road. Would be incredibly interested to know if Petersfield have now confirmed their specified allocation of houses to hit the 2028 Governmental Target, and how much they have been able to secure from developers? Anyone asked the Head of Planning? Cynical view would be this is the thin end of the wedge, looking to develop the land at the end of Station Road, it is naive to think these residents will not have vehicles. But obviously only the 1, which will not fit in the garage. It was clear from the presentation given from the Head of Planning EHDC, that there is no independent infrastructure thought recognized in the plans, it was simply to reach governmental targets. Hey Liphook have swallowed their expansion, will get all the rail commuter traffic from Bordon, lets dump some more houses in there as no one seems to care!

Re: SDNP Boundary Consultation - Russ (18th Dec 2018  14:56:18) Yes the way I see it we need to be all in or all out .my view is all out. Then we can start to save our historic conservation square which is far more important than the national park .whith no interference from the sdnp.

Re: SDNP Boundary Consultation - K (18th Dec 2018  16:26:55) Reading the consultation it appears to want views about how people feel about National Parks and AONBs and how they affect you. My view is that in Liphooks situation we have actually been harmed by having the SDNP boundary cutting us in two, which results in all new housing (which I believe we're waiting on EHDCs new plan to find out how much and where for the next few years) being allocated to unsuitable areas a long way from our facilities, which will cause additional traffic through the square, which is a conservation area and should be being protected not have increased traffic. If the boundary of the SDNP was moved to our Parish boundary then all land in the village would be treated the same and have the same protection, after all isn't one green field on the edge of the vilkage the same as another and should be protected alike? If the boundary was moved so that the whole of the village was within the SDNP then even better, but if it was moved so that none of it was in then we would more likely get more sustainable development which actually gave something to the village and was closer to the centre and schools.

Re: SDNP Boundary Consultation - helen (18th Dec 2018  17:59:51) To change the boundaries of the Park to please developers ? do we really need another Oak Park just across the road as well? It is laughable to think that Liphook square is worth countless more housing estates, this would lead to even more traffic in the Square! The ordinary people need the countryside, lets protect it for future generations. The traffic problems in the square are mostly caused by school traffic.

Re: SDNP Boundary Consultation - liz (19th Dec 2018  09:12:04) Those parts of the village that have/are being developed would have been developed anyway. To push back the boundary of the National Park to allow more development so that the village is 'balanced'? Well, only a developer could think of that one although it does have a sort of perverse logic. I think many would agree that Liphook has its place as a 'gateway' to the National Park and it is only right to keep as much green space as possible. I believe we have met our housing quotas for some time and should not be pressurised into development beyond this. Perhaps those that agree should fill in the survey and make it clear that pushing back the boundaries completely undermines the whole point of a National Park.

Re: SDNP Boundary Consultation - K (19th Dec 2018  12:38:17) What about moving the boundary so that all the Village was within the SDNP, that would be the ideal as the green fields to the north and east of the village are just as nice as the ones to the west that are in the SDNP. Without some sort of protectIon they will be developed in the next 10 years as Liphook will have to accept more housing from EHDC and all that peak time traffic will go through the village centre. Don't imagine Liphook won't be allocated more housing in the new EHDC Local Plan, it is nieve to think otherwise.

Re: SDNP Boundary Consultation - Paul (19th Dec 2018  13:07:05) Wouldn't it be great if the Parish Council also responded to the consultation on behalf of the village - supporting protection of Liphook from further development / erosion of the NP boundaries.

Re: SDNP Boundary Consultation - liz (19th Dec 2018  13:31:12) I think it naive to expect the boundaries to be expanded, unfortunately. Also a large part of the area north of Liphook up to the A3 already has planning permission.

Re: SDNP Boundary Consultation - Helen (19th Dec 2018  18:02:09) Liz by North of Liphook are you refering to the Horse’s field by Radford Bridge? I thought this was to be eco housing / light industrial by now? But there’s still no planning notice on the East Hants Planning portal yet? Our teens are awaiting the rumoured communal gardens by the river.

Re: SDNP Boundary Consultation - Keith Bingham (19th Dec 2018  19:00:28) Liz, Does it and what for. Can you be more specific as I wasn't aware of any planning applications and permissions outstanding in the village. All those that have permission have either been built or are in the process of being built.

Re: SDNP Boundary Consultation - liz (20th Dec 2018  11:15:09) I was referring to the Lowsley Farm development. Whether work has started or not is irrelevant.

Re: SDNP Boundary Consultation - helen (20th Dec 2018  14:15:54) Hi Helen the application near Radford bridge had no mention of light industrial or communal gardens? the River Wey trust were being gifted some land on the riverbanks if the permission was given, but it would just be to use the footpath to walk along, not land for use as a communal garden unless you bought a house there, I believe the presentation was that the houses and garden area would be for their residents only. Radford Park is already there and is used by teenagers anyway.

Re: SDNP Boundary Consultation - Russ (6th Jan 2019  12:08:37) Good to see our district councillor Angela Glass standing up for Liphook and other split parishes where planning is a nightmare.With councillor Bill Mouland announcement of more houses for Liphook in the next 5 years. Can you imagine 3or4 hundred houses being built on Sainsbury’s side of Liphook ie Highfield School Devils Lane etc. All the Traffic has to come through our Conservation square The queuing would stretch back to Highfield School . Before more development takes place we need to plan relief roads around our square, the heart of our village/Town if we loose that all is lost. It is far more important than a srip of unused farm land which the public have no access to one small foot path across. The SDNP do not care a tinkers cuss about our heritage. I have lived here all my life brought up on a farm .All the farms have gone to houses. Liphook has now grown to a large town by population but we don’t have the infrastructure to cope whith it.The SDNP our good at what they do but they need to consult more with local people and parishes.I fear for my Children . Grandchildren and Great grandchildren .I don’t want to see a massive spread of dormitory town with no heart.

Re: SDNP Boundary Consultation - oldie (6th Jan 2019  14:06:46) Liphook is getting hundreds of new houses but I fear that won't satisfy the developers for long. Liphook doesn't need so many more houses but the government and developers do and as we have the A3, a station, an (arguably not so super) superstore, our own brand of yellow bannannas, several new coffee shops and allegedly a sports centre somewhere, we are now, what is in Westminster circles classified as a 'growth town', with prospects. Therefore we must either protest all the piece meal development with little infrastructure and lack of town planning (I'm thinking this is way beyond a few well intentioned/ bickering parish volunteers) or embrace it wholeheartedly and start demanding big changes. Whilst sadly I'm not the man to be your Sir Christopher Wren, Le Corbusier or even Sir Robert Grieve, I can start the ball rolling with my very own Liphook masterplan vision: The old Liphook bypass has greatly eased London to Portsmouth traffic but Liphook is now starting to get clogged up again with all the new locals going to the hairdressers, bannanna shopping or out to buy a coffee, a questionable curry or to check up on barking dogs, not to mention through commuters fleeing the new Bordon eco town by car (5,000 new houses to come there too). The hopelessly small thinking bypass suggestions we've heard before including such trifles as a link from Longmoor Road to station Road, or a little road alongside the library etc just won't cut it. We now need a proper second bypass built specially at a cost of several hundred million pounds (budget up to a billion) beginning just by Headley Road, Conford to link up with the current Longmoor Road A3 junction, continuing round (dual carriageway) past the Deers Hut, straight through the golf course (a flyover would be acceptable here), along Highfield Lane (dual carriageway) to link up at a new roundabout by Highfield Lane/ Haslemere Road, then we can put new developments including high rise flats all the way up to Lynchmere and if we think big and continue the dual carriageway all the way up to Hewshott Lane (yes you would need a flyover) we could infill all the remaining land from Highfield House to Bramshott retirement village with housing estates too. That should meet our 'requirement' for a few years. We might even be able to squeeze in a new skatepark or if not, a multi storey pay and display car park as a thank you. I am available to draw up plans should you wish to take this further (for a small fee).

Re: SDNP Boundary Consultation - helen (6th Jan 2019  22:40:36) Building on the SDNP land is not going to lead to infrastructure, why should that suddenly happen? As oldie says a bypass is going to cost many millions, if a developer pays for that he/she will build more houses than we would possibly cope with and then we will need more infrastructure to cope with more houses ad infinitum!

Re: SDNP Boundary Consultation - A.R (7th Jan 2019  10:41:13) Helen. Building on the SDNP is far more preferable than building more houses to the East of Liphook where there is no infrastructure there at all. All the fields are used for agriculture. A few years ago people were asked where the preferred place for more houses would be and the overwhelming choice was the SDNP land. A new doctors surgery was proposed, plus a football pitch. As for the infrastructure this is the closet land to the station and walkable. Newtown would be on the doorstep, maybe this might bring new life and shops to the area. I lived opposite this land in the 1970s and people never had access to it whereas people walk along the sunken lanes of Chiltley for pleasure. At a meeting in Midhurst I seem to remember a brave councillor agreeing, only to be put down by other councillors that were, in my eyes objecting on unreasonable grounds. To me this shows what is wrong with our councillors, there is no foresight for the future, hence why we have hotchpotch properties dotted around Liphook. No one can deny the size of Liphook now, we have a secondary school, a sixth form, four junior and infant schools. Gone are the days when the girls went to school in the library. Someone needs to get the bull by the horns and sort Liphook out, we have a lot that's good here but far more that's not. Even Liss has a better shopping scene and they do not even have a large supermarket. I only hope they wake up to the fact before they put more housing in the wrong areas again.

Re: SDNP Boundary Consultation - Barry (7th Jan 2019  10:57:55) Someone asked why the parish council haven't drawn our attention to this. [sorry can't find it now]. the whole extortionately expensive charade that has played out in the last 6 months is the reason why! the head of planning, the vice head of planning and other councillors have been saying that you can't build houses on the south downs national park. They have also been fighting to make sure that local taxpayers don't have to pay money down the drain for a neighbourhood plan that expressly states that the parish wants houses in the south downs national park. the PC planning team are the 'locals' that make decisions in the best interests of local people, they don't care if a wealthy developer has already purchased the land and wants to make his money at the expense of the village. they have been browbeaten not only by the developers' cronies who have millions of pounds to make from building on the SDNP picked on and pressured mercilessly not to continue opposing development on our last remaining green space. they have stood their ground and said 'no more housing' and not to include it in the local plan - for their devotion they have been slandered in the press and ehdc have spent thousands having to carry out investigations in to their behaviour after all the developers 'cronies' [who want the houses] made fictitious complaints about them 'disrupting' meetings. If half the parish council is trying to batter the other half into submission about wanting more houses on our green fields - I doubt very much if they could ever agree on a neutral statement about it. fyi - our district councillors are all in favour of building hundreds of houses all over the last bits of green that we've got - the reason we still have those green bits is because the sdnp protect them, unlike the ehdc who seem determined to turn the whole countryside into concrete. of course, people connected to the landowners and developers who want houses (and the thousands of pounds profit in their pockets, are going to argue for houses in the sdnp, and of course they will want the boundary pulled back to reduce the size of the sdnp and enlarge the reach of the more 'malleable' ehdc planning team. whole thing stinks of fish

Re: SDNP Boundary Consultation - A.R (7th Jan 2019  13:22:12) Barry, so who are these cronies of the developers ? I am not one and I have never met one. I have spent most of my sixty years in Liphook and have no other motive than to see houses go up in areas that don't ruin Liphook. I can assure you that East of Liphook would wipe out all the fields around that area and spoil it for walkers, joggers and cyclists. Having a development in the SDNP ( not originally ) would give access to lovely walking areas. Some of the EHDC councillors agree but I am flummoxed as to why some of our parish councillors so ardently object when it is blindingly obvious this would be the best place. And please don't let's get started on the parish councillors, we all know how most of them are thought of.

Re: SDNP Boundary Consultation - liz (7th Jan 2019  13:43:07) The area of Liphook included in the SDNP protects some of our surrounding green space from development. At least that's what I thought - but it seems the developers will not back off. We need to stand up to them.

Re: SDNP Boundary Consultation - helen (7th Jan 2019  21:10:02) A R I believe when you talk about people being asked where to build houses in liphook, the majority of people in Liphook did not turn out to the event in the Millennium Hall. Word of mouth was that the Chiltley Lane Action group were there in force placing multiple stickers on the SDNPA area, ( when it was supposed to be one sticker per person ) to avoid it looking as if development on the Chiltley Lane Chicken Farm was going to be preferable by attendees. Placing stickers on a map without understanding the principles which prevent building in undeveloped areas of the National Parks is not an indication of what "the majority of people want".

Post Reply
Talkback Home