“REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Karina (14th Aug 2020 - 20:17:53)
All residents of Liphook will have received a smart pack from Harris Estates entitled A Vision for Liphook.
This application is for a major housing estate (the paper does not say how many new homes) on the Bohunt Manor land and therefore on the Southdowns National Park land. This application was rejected back in 2014 as no building was approved on the National Park land.
The whole development is on green land, proposing to further erode any rural feel to the village left with developments everywhere. The paper talks of Liphook’s growth needs - really? and promises all sorts of ‘perks’ which often do not materialise, with the added irony of calling this Westlands Park when park is the very thing it is seeking to destroy - NATIONAL PARK!
If you are opposed to the whole idea, please return the small questionnaire which was attached to the pack stating so. Write to your Councils’ Planning Departments, the Southdowns National Park, to your MP and anyone else you may think could be interested to hear your opinion.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - jane (14th Aug 2020 - 20:58:35)
If you’re in support of the idea is it the same questionnaire then?
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (14th Aug 2020 - 21:55:24)
Surely Bohunt Manor is a brown field site? Just as the fields and meadows of Treloars Hospital was a brown field site.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Karina (14th Aug 2020 - 22:04:06)
Yes, it is the same form. I am just wondering: why would anyone other than the developers who stand to profit, agree to building on the land of the National Park?
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Rachel (14th Aug 2020 - 22:49:53)
so F**k the environment F**k the animals , the green spaces that give us the oxygen we need to breath, lets just concrete and pave over all of it and keep our minds tightly closed!
Bahhhh bahhh bahhh, well my mind is wide open and i'm not a sheep!
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - MJ (15th Aug 2020 - 00:32:00)
U ok hun?
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Rolf (15th Aug 2020 - 01:05:32)
We never received any information pack? Neither did our neighbours. Were they sent to all Liphook residents or just those near the proposed development? I heard the medical centre field was now going to be used for a pig farm?
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - John (15th Aug 2020 - 01:57:25)
Maybe because people need houses, maybe the people whom will buy them will enjoy living in them, maybe they will contribute to the local economy etc.
Also I don’t see how that site is part of the national park, nor how building houses is going to ruin anything at all.
90% or more of the UK is not urban so maybe calm down a bit, sure I am not a fan of developers but they can’t build a house if there is no demand for the house. It’s all well and good saying we don’t want anymore after we already got one.
The climate isn’t going to topple over due to some new houses being built in Liphook and if anything the new standard of homes are better than some of the inefficient ageing energy leaking homes that are on the list to get pulled down.
You can’t just roll into this site and splatter your views over everyone expecting everyone to jump on board. It’s actually probable you live right next to it and or have some other motive why you don’t want the houses but likes most of the rest of the world you now expect you can splash info around and convince people your views are right and should be followed when actually... no we all differ and we can all have different and indeed more moderate and less sensation views
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (15th Aug 2020 - 06:20:03)
Hello, Rolf, I'm on the other side of town and the post lady gave me one.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - MJR (15th Aug 2020 - 08:20:37)
The proposal to develop the Bohunt Manor Estate site has previously been rejected by the South Downs National Park Authority.
The full history of this previous proposal and much background information can be found on the SOS Bohunt Manor Communiy Action Group's web site
They say “around 600 houses”, housing some 1,300 new residents. That contrasts with the old rejected Bohunt Manor application, which I think was for 140 houses.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Linda Morris (15th Aug 2020 - 09:47:40)
we got the brochure and it seems Redrow Houses are saying that we will be able to walk over the land which I must say seems good, especially these days. This seems to be what the sosbohuntmanor group mentioned by MJR are campaigning for on the website and well done to if they have agreed this with the land owner.
Can someone explain the relief road they mention please. how would this help us
What about the medical centre they mention. I thought the local doctors were against it ?
Linda Morris
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Nick (15th Aug 2020 - 11:10:59)
Linda, you can already walk over the land - there’s a path beside the Silent Garden estate which leads down by the Foley Manor lakes. Whether you are still going to want to walk there when 600 houses have been built is another matter.
RELIEF ROAD - sounds great doesn’t it, but it would link to Portsmouth Road, when most of the traffic heading towards Longmoor Road comes from Haslemere Road and Headley Road. EHDC concluded in 2014 that a relief road such as proposed by Redrow wouldn’t address the main areas of traffic. The most effective solution seems to be a link between Headley Road and Haslemere Road.
Even Redrow say (p30 of their main document) that the main purpose of the road is “to enable the development”. At most it will provide “some relief to the congestion in the Square”.
Any traffic from Liphook using the road would have to access it from Station Road, which really can’t handle any more traffic.
SURGERY - years ago now the owners of Bohunt Manor got outline permission for a new surgery (from EHDC, who were then the planning authority). But the owners weren’t prepared to pay for it. Nor was the NHS. So it was never built. That permission may have expired now.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Another Passfield Resident (15th Aug 2020 - 12:12:12)
We received our "pack" yesterday, comprising a covering letter, a brief note about the proposal with an outline map of the location and a response card.
Almost all of the land for the proposed development appears to be within the national park!
The developers say that building can be permitted in the NP if it has local support. I definitely do not support this!
I note also that Liphook is consistently referred to in the documentation as a "town". I've always thought Liphook is a village, albeit quite a large and sprawling one.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (15th Aug 2020 - 12:34:27)
I think it's a good idea. Look at the map we were all sent, this part of Liphook is way under developed. It's the right development in the right part of Liphook. The area between the old A3 and Longmoor Road has suffered from lack of development for decades.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Charlie (15th Aug 2020 - 15:27:33)
So what have the developers actually changed since their last proposal was rejected in 2015? This proposal is much, much larger (600 homes compared to 140) and the details about the infrastructure that will support this development are vague. As mentioned above in the thread, EHDC have acknowledged that the relief road will not ease congestion in the village. Are South Western Railway proposing to increase the number of trains through Liphook? Will the village gain another large supermarket? Because it's going to need all of those things, and more, if the village is to support an additional 1300 residents.
There's also a lot of mention in the document of "previous consent" to develop this particular site but the public consultation was more than six years ago in June 2014. I have lived in the village for three years, very close to this site, so my voice has never been heard. Surely a new public consultation is needed to identify the correct site for development? That's too long ago to assume there is consent especially when we are talking about building on a national park.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Joe (15th Aug 2020 - 20:01:59)
The bohunt manor site is not brownfield. It has been deemed land of special landscape quality by the SDNpA please return flyers saying it is a bad idea. They are trying to persuade the neighbourhood plan leaders that it is the way forward. It is those people you need to tell your opinions to before it is too late.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Joe (15th Aug 2020 - 20:22:09)
D you say this part of liphook has " suffered" through not being developed. Suffered how exactly? Not enough concrete covering the SSSI? Or not enough profit for prospective developers? Liphook has become an urban sprawl we do not need more concrete.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Rob (15th Aug 2020 - 22:02:27)
Won't be fully finished for 16 years in 2036 did people read that bit?
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (15th Aug 2020 - 22:05:02)
Joe, if you look at the map you will see that the centre of Liphook is roughly Manor Fields. Over the past sixty years all areas of Liphook have done their bit to provide housing except for the area shown. The development of this land would put the centre of Liphook AT the centre of Liphook. The country has a housing crisis and everyone must do their bit, including national parks. The S.D.N.P. issue may have carried more weight if all of Liphook had been included in it rather than just the little bit on the edge.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Charlie (15th Aug 2020 - 22:07:44)
Re Joe's comment: the Neighbourhood Plan is being developed by the Liphook and Bramshott NDP Steering Group bramshottandliphookndp.uk let them know your thoughts.
Let's be clear about what the developers are actually proposing here: an additional 600 homes and roughly 1,300 new residents means a potential increase of about 20% in Liphook's population. This development will have huge implications for the village, not least the removal of precious (protected) countryside and open spaces.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - anon (16th Aug 2020 - 06:52:26)
@ Rob
Completion in 2036 means we can look forward to several years of disruption, noise and construction vehicles through the village all day. If anyone thinks the traffic is bad now, just wait
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (16th Aug 2020 - 07:50:07)
Surely construction traffic would do better to come off the A3 at Griggs Green? Be easier for the drivers to find as well.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Joe (16th Aug 2020 - 09:42:52)
The reason that part has been left alone is that it is protected land and only geographically on the fringes of the urban area of Liphook. I realise that developers want to make money but the area under the new planning reforms will be in the Red Zone. The consultants of the neighbourhood plan have designated this as a red zone too in their Aecom report.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - M (16th Aug 2020 - 11:50:00)
The biggest question is "Does East Hampshire and Liphook need an additional 600+ homes?"
If it does where is the best place for them? EHDC have decided not Liphook...at this moment..... and have allocated Bordon to take them, and possibly the area along the A31 corridor some in the future.
BUT....... we all know policies and numbers change and in all likelihood a lot more houses will need to be built in the next 30 years than are planned at the moment. Where will they go?
If it's decided that Liphook should take 600+ more homes, on top of the extra 140 we've provisionally been allocated (see EHDCs draft new Local Plan), then to be honest this site is the best option of those available. It might be in the SDNP but it is the closest site to all the existing facilities, the closest site to the centre of our village (town?), closest site to the Railways station and instant access to the A3 without having to go through the village centre. It's also the only site that appears, and I say that realising anyone can promise something, to actually offer benefits to the whole community, as well as some upgrades to our infrastructure....... which no past development has ever done!
Who will decide on this possible development?
It's in the SDNP so they will be the planning authority which will finally rubber stamp it if it gets that far.
EHDC control the housing numbers for East Hampshire (after being told how many to take from central Government) so they will have an input too.
Our Parish Council, under the guise of the Neighbourhood Plan, could also push forward a decision if they decide to allocate the site in the forthcoming NDP...... anyone know what's happening there!!!
So it appears Liphook may have some decisions to make in the not too distant future. Do we want just piecemeal development... 50 houses here, 70 house there.... with no upgrades to our facilities and infrastructure, or do we bite the bullet, support a big scheme but ensure we all get something from it to make Liphook actually a better place to live, and not just a dormitory town to Guildford and London.
Get involved if you want to be part of that decision!
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Joe (16th Aug 2020 - 13:01:44)
Please understand that although M has made good points that is now in the past. The new planning laws take effect early sept the Neighbourhood plan will only be allowed to look at land in the correct zone. They cannot override the new system. They will have input over design and build quality. CiL is dissapearing as well so things will change drastically. We will get more houses but not in protected areas.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Nick (16th Aug 2020 - 17:16:44)
Rob, great that the Neighbourhood Plan consultants have zoned the land red, but that’s exactly what Redrow are trying to overturn. They want the public to demonstrate that there is a majority in favour of their plans. If we object then we need to make sure the plan is thrown out at the proposed referendum.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Life Resident (16th Aug 2020 - 17:42:31)
Yes 79 years here and seen it all. M you are on the button quite correct in every way. If Liphook had been all in the National Park this site would have been Number One on the list. The National Park people have completely messed Liphook up who in their right mind puts a boundary slap bang in the middle of a Parish some idiot. The National Parks are supposed to protect conservation areas they are doing. The exact opposite we need to protect our square at all costs.The Conservation square is far more important than a strip of redundant farm land It Is Not National Park it’s private land. I should no I have been kicked off many times when I was young. Just remember if the square gets closed for some reason as has happened a number of times you have a 10 mile round trip to get from one side to the other. We must make the National Park See they have made a huge mistake by cutting our Parrish in two. We are going to have houses like it or not let’s try and get the best deal for our community no other developer is offering anything if you put houses on the other side of the Square it will bring the Centre of village/ Town to a standstill. We need this link road and rear entrance to Bohunt School so they can shut the entrance in Longmoor Road this would make a huge difference to traffic at school time through the square. As M says we must plan for the Future not have piece meal developments all over the Parrish .We don’t want another Lowsley Park 300 houses with Nothing for Liphook we need EHDC to start backing our. Community if that is at all possible.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Joe (17th Aug 2020 - 11:23:44)
As I said before EHDC will not decide this. The whole of liphook was never going to be included in the park boundary. The SDNPA do not allow massive housing estates on previously untouched land where there are no exsisting facilities close by. They allow redevelopment of exsisting sites such as the King George houses in Midhurst. EHDC are a seperate planning authority.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Life Resident (17th Aug 2020 - 12:21:57)
Yes Joe quite correct that’s why the Government are looking into the boundaries because National Parks have made some terrible mistakes all over the country. Liphook was mentioned in parliament as an example splitting community’s has made it impossible to but developments in the best place.. As I said development on the other side of the square is a disaster. That piece of land is in the right place close to all amenities and the station clear access to the A3 without going through the square.walking distance to all the schools perfect. And as said not National Park But Private Land.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - liz (17th Aug 2020 - 12:51:44)
The irony is that the relief road could bring some benefit to the traffic through the square if no more houses are built. Adding traffic from a further 600 homes (c1000 cars?) is unlikely to bring any net improvement and could make the situation far worse. Yes as a country we need more homes but Liphook has already met it's quota plus there is the enormous development in Bordon - with no rail connection.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Nick (17th Aug 2020 - 13:12:05)
Dear Lifetime Resident
The proposal doesn’t include a new entrance to Bohunt. All it mentions (p43) is a “POTENTIAL” footway link (across the playing fields). That won’t do anything for all the cars which come to Bohunt now. Even if a new car access was built from the new road, how would the cars get there? Down Station Road? I hope not!
Yes we are going to get houses like it or not - but nothing like 600! Including this land as development land would just be an invitation to the authorities to put the whole of East Hampshire’s housing allocation in Liphook.
And of course the National Park land is private. That’s how national parks work in the U.K. - the land is private (sometimes owned by the National Trust) but there are restrictions on development.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Joe (17th Aug 2020 - 13:50:15)
I think you have been given mis information from someone probably an EHDC councillor. The government are not looking at the boundary issues and refiguring them. this was done at great expense some years ago and nothing changed. The government will not spend massively again on this as the SDNP is the newest National Park created. The planning laws are changing in September. Things will change, yes and will probably affect Liphook but not how lifetime resident might hope. I realise that a lot of local people are hoping for their personal investment in this land to be realised, but land speculation in a National Park? Fingers get burned.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Lifetime Resident (17th Aug 2020 - 14:40:15)
Nick the plans I have seen include a spur to Bohunt with car park.A roundabout on Portsmouth Road through to Longmoor Road.All traffic coming up Portsmouth Road can access Bohunt and the A 3 along the link road.Yes any traffic coming from Midhurst Road ie Sainsbury’s The Berg ect will come down through station road as before but can access the A3 with out going through the square. And it works the other way round traffic from Bordon should come in from greathham and A 3 to access the station much quicker.Liz none of the traffic from the new houses need to go through the square for anything they can access Portsmouth London Haslemere Farnham ect ect Down the link road. The only time they might need to go through the square is to go to the post office but even that is within walking distance.But this is a big But if the Developers don’t play ball and do the job properly then we will all be against it.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Dick (17th Aug 2020 - 14:54:56)
How do the developers come up with the total of 1300 people and 600 houses? I have always understood that the average family is 2 adults and 2.4 children. 600 times 4.4 is 2640!
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Dawn Hoskins (17th Aug 2020 - 15:18:41)
Why do people keep referring to a relief road?
the only reason a road has to be built it to access the houses they are planning to build - it is not for the benefit of Liphook, it is so they have access to the site. They wouldn't be able to build it and sell houses on it if it didn't have a road.
It will do nothing to alleviate traffic as that is not the route traffic takes.
This whole thing makes me think of poor Bordon - the people swallowed this 'grand idea' of a new cinema, a new town centre with good 'anchor shops' and what have they got????
Liphook is full.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Jen (17th Aug 2020 - 16:08:01)
Lifetime Resident,
You have misunderstood what the term "National Park" means!
A National Park is an area of land that is designated as protected, so there are restrictions on what can be done with the land within its boundary. The land is mostly privately owned. Here is an extract from the National Parks Service website:
"A large amount of land within the National Parks is owned by private landowners. Farmers and organisations like the National Trust are some of the landowners, along with the thousands of people who live in the villages and towns. National park authorities sometimes own bits of land, but they work with all landowners in all National Parks to protect the landscape."
I trust that clarifies the situation.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - M (17th Aug 2020 - 17:09:46)
@ Joe
I have no quarrel with your comments, we're all allowed to voice our own thoughts and opinions in a respectful way, but I'm not sure where you have found that the proposed new planning rules (Growth, Renewal and Protected etc. etc.) are to be implemented from September?
I have had a quick read through the consultation document ....
.... and the only mention of any dates are that the consultation runs for 12 weeks from the 6th August 2020. At the end of the White Paper it also says....
"Our proposals for Local Plan reform, changes to developer contributions and development management would require primary legislation followed by secondary legislation. The proposals allow 30 months for new Local Plans to be in place so a new planning framework, so we would expect new Local Plans to be in place by the
end of the Parliament."
..... so I think September might be a bit optimistic, although I accept you didn't mention a year.
Even then the reforms don't actually mention protecting National Parks from development. In fact National Parks are mentioned as a place where restrictive development is having an adverse affect on supply and affordability of homes. Green Belt, AOB's and SSSI do get mention of protection but again not a blanket ban on development.
Please keep up your interest in the future of our village and might I suggest you could get involved in the local Neighbourhood Plan, as I understand they a desperate for new members.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - David W (17th Aug 2020 - 17:26:59)
Never lose sight of the fact that the main aim of developers is to trouser girt wads of cash; whatever they may say. If this country is stupid enough to allow a hundred people a day to enter the country by using rubber dinghies and other means; then of course the politicians will continue to argue that all these houses are needed.
I am starting to think that this whole house building thing is a deliberate smoke screen by the politicians. They are doing nothing about illegal people entering the country. It was admitted a few weeks ago officially, that there are at least a million people here illegally. Oh - and don't believe the bilge about providing Doctors Surgeries. A complete load of rubbish - Doctors are bailing out or retiring faster than they can be recruited in the UK.
There is no chance of GP's ever staffing one of these pie in the sky developers promised surgeries.
I moved to Liphook about 1975 - it was a green and pleasant place then, with 2 local Policemen. The politicians of both main parties have consistently lied to us all and are wrecking our country.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Joe (17th Aug 2020 - 18:09:24)
HI M yes you are right not law yet but a white paper. Do think though it will be rushed through parliament as Boris announced changes on the news.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - SOS Bohunt Manor Community Action Group (17th Aug 2020 - 19:56:33)
Newer residents and those that have been here for several years might be interested in the following videos of a public meeting held with regard to the original development proposals for the Bohunt Manor Estate.
The consensus at the meeting was that the development of this Gateway to the South Downs National Park was unacceptable. As a direct result of this meeting the SOS Bohunt Manor Community Action Group was formed.
The planning application for the development was refused by the SDNP Planning Authority
Further information can be found on the web site www.sosbohuntmanor.co.uk of the SOS Bohunt Manor Community Action Group. The SOS Bohunt Manor Community Action Group is still in existence and will be commenting on the Harrow Estates proposals in the near future.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - jamie (18th Aug 2020 - 00:04:33)
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (18th Aug 2020 - 06:58:22)
What's this "gateway to the South Downs National Park?" Bohunt Manor is private land and not open to all. Never has been, even before it was bequeathed to the World Wildlife Fund who then sold it you had to pay to walk there. As I have already posted, if Liphook is to have more housing this is the perfect place for it. Look at the map, Liphook is lopsided and this development would balance Liphook out perfectly. If the S.D.N.P. is a problem then change the boundary. National parks are not immune from development.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Jen (18th Aug 2020 - 08:43:27)
@D
It makes no difference who owns the land as to whether or not it can be described as the "gateway" to the national park.
As has already been explained, the vast majority of land within our national parks is privately owned and a great deal of it is not publicly accessible. That is the nature of national parks in this country.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Joe (18th Aug 2020 - 09:24:43)
I do suspect that D is possibly someone who posted adverts on Liphook community pages for the developers. He or she shows no knowledge of how National parks operate.
You cannot just move boundaries of districts. It would take millions of pounds to have a second stab at this, the first attempt failed.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Rachel (18th Aug 2020 - 09:31:04)
D, it was Bequeathed by the Lady of the manor to the people of Liphook to always enjoy walking the land. It was sold to WWF who then did the unthinkable.
I did have a letter here (wish I could find the blinking thing) from the Lady of the manor detailing this.
She would be turning in her grave now if she knew the betrayal that has ensued.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (18th Aug 2020 - 10:27:35)
Joe, you carry on with your daft conspiracy theories.
Rachel, it was bequeathed by Lady Holborn to the World Wildlife Fund, which she wanted them to use as their world headquarters. People of Liphook were allowed to visit the beautiful grounds but we did have to pay a fee.
I say this respectfully but a lot on this thread is a repeat of the six hundred houses proposal.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Nick (18th Aug 2020 - 10:32:20)
Lifetime Resident
Here is a screenshot from the full proposal document, showing the southern part of the site. The Bohunt pedestrian access into the existing playing fields is at the top: drive.google.com/file/d/...
Try as I might I couldn’t find a reference to a car park and spur to Bohunt. Are you sure that was in relation to this proposal and not an earlier one?
What it does mention is “potential” provision of a car and coach park and drop off area for Bohunt - but that’s only “potential” and it’s not shown at all on the plans. And if it is built, the question remains of how the cars (and coaches) would get there. Just think of where the majority of the schools traffic comes from - it’s not the Portsmouth Road or Longmoor Road. Most of the Liphook population lives on the other side of the Square.
It’s worth remembering that what we’ve got here is a suggested scheme, for the purposes of getting the land reallocated. Once that’s been done, the developers can weigh in with a proper costed scheme and application. That could look very different. Lots of the proposals and safeguards in the current suggestion, particularly those shown as “potential”, could suddenly turn out to be too expensive, and disappear.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Jen (18th Aug 2020 - 11:13:25)
What a great pity that the Lady of the Manor did not bequeath the land to the National Trust instead of to the WWF.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Lifetime Resident (18th Aug 2020 - 11:21:22)
Well said D . Jen &Joe I understand completely about the National Parks over many many years I have attended the majority of meetings at Neighbourhood Plan If Parrish Ehdc and National Parks .Thats how I no the boundaries were put on the wrong side of this piece of land let’s say it was a done deal and leave it a that. Half of the land belongs to The Northcote Trust and Dawn the Link Road is option 5 put out by HCC after their many Road surveys. SOS Bohunt was started by a group of people with two or three Parrish Councillors on board who had a grudge against the owner before the boundaries were set they soon distanced themselves when found out. The National Parks are allowed to have development if it benefits the community as this does no other development offers anything for the community So all you new people to our lovely village step back and look a little deeper don’t believe all read. As for the gateway to the Park complete rubbish that’s down the Deer’s Hut Weavers Down. If you attend all the previous consultations you would have seen that the vast majority wanted this development but again dirty tricks. So I leave you all to believe what you want.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - A.R (18th Aug 2020 - 12:23:48)
Absolutely spot on Life time resident. I too went to all the meetings over the years and found too that a few of the Parish Councillors had an overwhelming desire to stop this. This land was the only logical land to be used for development. But for some reason they got the SDNP to back them in preventing any building.
Having lived opposite the suggested entrance in the 1970's when both garages were still there I can vouch this land was always agricultural and not used by the public.
I went to a meeting in Midhurst a number of years ago which included District Councillors and doctors who thought the Health Centre would be a benefit to the village, but the Parish Councillors made sure it didn't happen, as the judgment was turned down much to the disgust of many.
Having seen the developments rise up from the 1960's one should question the judgment of our so called Councillors..
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - liz (18th Aug 2020 - 12:23:51)
Lifetime Resident
There is no evidence that the 'vast majority' of residents want this land developed. Also it is correct to say it is the gateway to the national park as that is the part of the national park that borders Liphook where you cross the boundary. A lot of people fought hard to get this extension to the boundary and now it could be thrown away as it suits a few developers.
Whatever your views on location 600 new houses is too many for Liphook bearing in mind recent development. Some of us have pride in our village and the local landscape. I certainly hope the National Parks Authority's previous decision prevails.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - SB (18th Aug 2020 - 12:24:25)
THIS IS THE BEST PLACE FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT IN LIPHOOK ALONG WITH THE FACILITIES PROPOSED!!.....🥅⚽️🤾🏽♀️🏡
This has my vote as there is nowhere else around suitable due to narrow roads & bridges!!!..
We have surrounding our Village Beautiful countryside & walks for wildlife & fauna to survive!!!!... Enjoy!!!!..
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Jay (18th Aug 2020 - 12:37:38)
Postcard returned to Redrow. No to all. When I walk, cycle, picnic in the South Downs National park bordering Liphook I like to gaze out upon farmland, forest, and meadows, not housing estates!
Liphook has 100’s of new homes at Silent Garden, Lowesley Farm, and the possibly the pig farm too. We have done our bit for the burgeoning population of SE England. This development practically doubling the size of the village is all about lining developers and landowners pockets. At the expense of the environment and current residents enjoyment of a peaceful location.
It’s just a no.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (18th Aug 2020 - 12:51:56)
All this counts for diddly-squat if the Secretary of State for the Environment can overturn any planning decision, national park or not. He doesn't need a "second stab" at it neither. Having spent fifty years living in Liphook and never objecting to a single planning application (even ones on my doorstep) I'm disappointed at the selfish attitude of a small minority of current Liphook residents. This certainly isn't the Liphook I grew up in.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Lifetime Resident (18th Aug 2020 - 12:59:09)
Thanks AR, I too worked opposite in Moss’s Garage in the sixties and there was no way that you could go on that land. Lady Holman opened it up once a year to let people look around but you had to be on your best behaviour.
But even then there was talk of building houses on the land. This has been going on for years and years it’s time Liphook got something out of it. Nows the time, at least if it was opened up the public could view the wet lands, which you cannot do now.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Linda Morris (18th Aug 2020 - 14:17:18)
Dear All
I wrote earlier about the new surgery and asked if the doctors really wanted it as neighbours on the estate said that they were not interested. I have since heard conflicting views and would appreciate hearing the facts before committing to responding to the leaflet we received.
Short of phoning the doctors up, though I don't want to waste their time, can anyone advise please.
This would be a deciding point for our family.
Linda Morris
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Charlie (18th Aug 2020 - 14:17:26)
D, you have nothing to back up the idea that the majority of residents support this scheme. And it is not "selfish" for us to be skeptical about a development which proposes to increase the size of the village by ~20% offering few tangible benefits AND which will literally pave over protected countryside.
Without the proper infrastructure to support thousands of new residents and merely a promise of "potential benefits" that may never materialise, this is not an attractive proposal for current OR prospective future residents.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Joe (18th Aug 2020 - 14:50:36)
Life time resident I too attended many meetings. I do not think Parish Councillors held as much sway as you think. Most of them opposed all of the bigger housing estates now built including Oak Park. Did not seem to make any difference. The routes for a bypass you mention were only a theorectical document paid for by the developers of Oak Park. No promises were ever made re actual building of the routes. Besides all studies show the square is congested only at school times. If 600 houses are built it will mean multiple more traffic movements congesting a relief road.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (18th Aug 2020 - 15:22:19)
Charlie, I have made no claims at all as to how many people support this proposal. Are you sure you're on the right thread?
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (18th Aug 2020 - 15:42:51)
Charlie, by "selfish" I mean a reluctance to allow new people to move into Liphook. When I moved here fifty years ago everyone was very welcoming. Nowadays there seems to be an attitude of "we live in a nice place but don't want anyone else to enjoy it." Fifty years ago Liphook wasn't the prosperous middle class town it is now. A lot of us found ourselves here because we were evicted from our previous homes.
Referring to the South Downs National Park issue, if the inclusion of a very small part of Liphook is causing such upset and division in the town, then maybe it would be better if the boundary was redrawn not to include Liphook. History is littered with communities being torn apart over boundary disputes. Ireland, Yugoslavia, Lebanon.
I just know some numpty is going to tell me to "back all this up." I bet a conversation in the pub is great with some of you.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Charlie (18th Aug 2020 - 15:58:45)
D, your previous post said "I'm disappointed at the selfish attitude of a small minority of current Liphook residents"
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Alan (18th Aug 2020 - 16:58:12)
Interesting to note that those for the expansion are already calling Liphook a town.
Liphook is not a town, it is a village. I think the vast majority of residents would want it to remain a village and not become a town, which 600 extra houses would probably tip it over to being called a town. No thank you.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - M (18th Aug 2020 - 17:29:00)
I would like to reiterate my previous comments regarding this proposal, that is all it is at the moment, NOT a planning application. There is also no "Referendum" on it either.
Liphook, at this moment has only been allocated 140 new homes over the period of the new EHDC Draft Local Plan (out to 2036 I believe). The SDNPA haven't allocated us any new homes over the period of their current Local Plan. For a place the size of Liphook, with it's good communication links, shops and schools, that is a very small number in deed and is unheard of in the current (pre-covid) planning round.
As Joe has mentioned before that is likely to change due to the Governments shake up of the planning rules which are likely to come into force in around 4/5 years time. It is very likely that EHDC will need to find space for a lot more homes within 5 years. Liphook is seen as a sustainable location so we are likely to see a lot more than 140 homes allocated to us in any review. EHDC will likely negotiate with the SDNPA and ask them to to take some and Harrow Estates will say..."Look we have a great site ready and waiting to go for 600 homes".
All those that have a knee jerk reaction "NO NO NO, not in the SDNP" need to step back and think! Where is the best place to build homes in Liphook and which site is the most sustainable and will possibly give our community some benefits?
You only have to look at the 375? being built at Oak Park to realise what future developments in Liphook will look like if our community don't get together and fight to get something out of new housing developments.
No developer wants to give things away but if the community get together and pressure them into providing things for our village/town then surely that's better than everyone just saying NO, and eventually (10years?) it gets permission and we as residents get nothing at all?
I think that's where the Neighbourhood Plan may come in?
Perhaps the time has come for everyone to start to be a bit more realistic and be proactive rather than just NIMBY?
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - James (18th Aug 2020 - 17:29:53)
Alan,
Liphook is not a village.
"A village is a small settlement usually found in a rural setting. It is generally larger than a "hamlet" but smaller than a "town". Some geographers specifically define a village as having between 500 and 2,500 inhabitants." - National Geographic
Population of Liphook: 6,963 (2018) - City Population
Liphook does not fit the definition of being a village.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (18th Aug 2020 - 17:58:42)
Sorry Charlie, my error. I'm referring to the number of people on this website.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (18th Aug 2020 - 18:16:57)
I'm sure you are correct, Alan. I only call Liphook a town because I would rather be referred to as "townsfolk" rather than "Village People."
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Lifetime Resident (18th Aug 2020 - 18:35:39)
Alan over 10 years ago liphook was a small country town in the Liphook In Bloom south &south East competition by Population and we have grown one hell of a lot since then. We are quite a large town now with no infrastructure ie roads to take all the traffic.If you build 600 Houses at Highfield School and the Chicken Farm as EHDC seem to want to do then more will follow down Devils Lane .No way of getting around the square. Do you want. to queue all the way back to lake house bridge on Haslemere Road Midhurst Road and the same on Headley Road Longmoor Road because that’s what will happen.600 houses on this site will Not cause this problem and we may get more for our money.Some one else has said we must plan 20 years ahead very wise.Joe as for the Roads suggested HCC they did the surveys over several years the last was lost by Parrish council the previous one said Liphook was at capacity traffic wise at school time.The suggested Roads were presented at the EHDC planning meeting at Penns Place for the Lowsly Park Development.The Liphook people attending hoped that the council would make Wimpys but the Road in but chicken out let us down badly.Joe have you sat in the square on a Saturday or Sunday morning and counted the traffic Thousands.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Joe (18th Aug 2020 - 18:38:27)
D no one is being unwelcoming to new people in Liphook. There are plenty of houses for sale in liphook currently if you look on rightmove. As M says there are more in the LOCAL EhDc plan waiting to be built. They have not sold all of those in oak park yet. I did not vote for brexit, but those who did presumably thought that the demand for housing would mean a huge increase in building. Who has panicked everyone into thinking all these houses are required now? A lot of people will lose their jobs due to covid, a house buy will not be top priority
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Linda Morris (18th Aug 2020 - 19:57:08)
Dear All
All very interesting views, some of which I just about grasp, but could someone please enlighten me about the new doctors surgery please, as already requested.
The leaflet we received mentions little about the doctors and the new surgery, but I for one would need to be convinced that a.) the doctors actually want it and b.) that it is guaranteed to be built.
For our family for personal reasons, this is what will matter in the near future.
Any help on this subject would be appreciated
Linda Morris
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Bubble146 (18th Aug 2020 - 20:19:04)
M, Just a quick note, could not agree more with your original post in terms of quotas for regions within EHDC.
Your spin on what Liphook contributes to the current/ new local plan in your second post is a little disingenuous.
Further to the last round of this development, I too went to the meeting at the Millennium Hall with the EHDC Head of Planning.
Where it was made clear what Liphook's regions allocation was within the period, running up to 2028. At that time we where circa 120 short of the 600+ allocated. Compared with other regions that 10/20/30% of their allocation for the period up to 2028.
Thus your figure, assuming it correct, has to be seen in context over the period 2015 to 2036, where Liphook has already confirmed planning allocation for over 600 properties, of which half have still not been built. In the current/future economic climate may not be built for some time.
Thus as i questioned the Head of EHDC at the time in the meeting, he has no idea what the affect on the local infrastructure would be of the original 600+ houses never mind a further 600+ houses now proposed by Redrow.
I would suggest no one knows if the current infrastructure will cope once the original planned and allocated 600+ houses are completed to 2028. Whilst we are also yet to see the knock on effect of the Bordon development on Liphook railway links.
It must be noted that Liphook has benefited little from the current plan as all monies contributed by Developers for these projects in our Parish goes to EHDC and is allocated at their discretion within East Hampshire.
Great to see all the money being spent in Petersfield though, EHDC Head Quarters are based there aren't they!
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Jane (18th Aug 2020 - 23:32:27)
Every place on this list claim they are the largest village in the UK
Also think the title of this post needed edited, Liphook's future wont end due to 600 houses, if anything that 600 houses will ensure it survives for ever.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Joe (19th Aug 2020 - 08:21:32)
M, I was partially correct big changes to planning have come in already, mainly to the permitted development rights. It means brownfield sites will be easier to turn into housing and also exsisting dwellings can build bigger and bigger extensions without planning permission, if the house was built after 1946, I think building controls are still required. I presume all that is left now is the new zoning system. Local architects will struggle.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Jay (19th Aug 2020 - 09:00:02)
Total land mass: 514 sq km
Population: 119,932
Main towns: Alton, Petersfield, Whitehill & Bordon
Large villages: Horndean, Liphook, Liss and Four Marks
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Lifetime Resident (19th Aug 2020 - 11:16:46)
Linda as no one else seems not want to answer your question . I will have a go the medical centre was a part of the original application before the National Parks boundaries were set . Both surgeries were for it but money had to be found to finance it the Developers only gave the land as with all the other sports facilities. If EHDC had past it we would of had it all . As you can see by this thread things have changed dramatically but if we demand this developer gives all what he promises we may just get it.The National Parks have made some huge mistakes over the country but they will not admit it no one seems to monitor what they do. I am all for saving our beautiful country side I was brought up on farm and no all about the country side But I also want to save Liphook’s Heritage the Conservation Square it is being ravaged by traffic more now than when the A3 passed through it.Do you realise no roads have been built around the square they are all the same as when the stage coaches came through..
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - M (19th Aug 2020 - 11:23:21)
@ Joe
Not too sure where you get that 600 homes are in the pipeline for Liphook in the new EHDC Local Plan which runs from 2017 to 2036.
My understanding is that 155 have permission at Phase 2 of Oak Park, 100 allocated at Chiltley Farm and 40/50 at Popes Field. They are the allocations for Liphook in the Draft EHDC local plan, phase 2 of Oak Park already having planning permission but not yet started building.
Oak Park Phase 1 was the last EHDC local plan allocation and I'm under the impression around 50% are built/occupied.
There are no houses allocated in the SDNPA area of the village.
Therefore I calculate around 250 more homes to be built in the village over the life of the new EHDC Local, that is before it's reviewed and in all likelihood the numbers increased.
Oak Park Phase 1, 175 homes, being the final approval pushed through by EHDC for the previous EHDC Local Plan so not counted in the new local plan.
I agree that no one knows what the affect on our infrastructure will be once Oak Park is finished, hence why I feel the community needs to get active in trying to ensure any future developments actually bring benefits to us rather than just houses.
I think you and I are singing off the same hyme sheet, so to say, but possibly see, and want, a different future for our village. My impression is that those who have lived here for decades would like to see some positive development in the future, but those who have lived here for a shorter time don't want any change full stop. Just my impression and not being judgemental.
@Linda
The new medical centre was given planning permission, along with the access roads and a new football pitch, allotments, orchard etc, many years ago just before the land was included in the SDNP.
The developers cleared the banks and started the footings to keep the permission active, I believe, but the local NHS Commissioning unit had to fund the fitting out and there's wasn't any budget. I suspect the same holds true now but the only people who could confirm that is the doctors themselves, so I suggest you direct you questions to them.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - liz (19th Aug 2020 - 12:41:24)
M
Your 'impression' is wrong. Many people who have lived here for decades are not in favour of the development.
Lifetime Resident
We are all in favour of conservation of the Square but not sure how another 600 houses will help other than mitigate the impact of the new development somewhat - but we will be no better off.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Eddie Trotter (19th Aug 2020 - 13:44:27)
I feel I must respond to a lot of miss information about Bohunt Manor. My Aunt allowed anyone at any time to visit the grounds. There was an honesty box for donations which all went towards the national garden scheme. My Aunt actively encouraged people from Liphook to visit and in fact enjoyed talking to them, some visitors even came from overseas. Picnics were also allowed and pensioners used to come in for free and feed the ducks, geese and black swans on a regular basis.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Joe (19th Aug 2020 - 15:02:07)
M I said a lot of houses being built but did not mention a figure. Linda the medical centre has always had permission the NHs cannot afford to fund it. When I last looked into it, the owners of the land were not offering the land freehold. They were prepared to erect a building and rent it out if houses were allowed there. The 2 local surgeries currently own their properties freehold via their pension funds. Understandably they did not want to merge their seperate sugeries just to be joint tenants somewhere else. My fear is the medical centre could end up not having any NHS GP surgeries but could get built and tenanted by physios etc.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - M (19th Aug 2020 - 16:33:21)
@ Joe
My sincere apologies, I incorrectly thought the response to my comment was from you when in actual fact it was from "Bubble146".
Age is catching up with me.
@ Bubble146
Please see my post further up in response to your comments, which I believe are inaccurate.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Bubble146 (19th Aug 2020 - 17:55:25)
M
To add to your list in terms of planning consent, off the top of my head:
i) Extension to Sainsburys Estate around the green,completed.
ii) Properties yet to be built in the slither of land between the Sainsburys estate and railway track (hope they are well sound proofed).
iii) Estate built behind the church hall/vicarage/ Bohunt, completed.
The outstanding 112 from the original planned 600+, stays in my head as this is the exact figure the developers originally proposed for the chicken farm off Chiltey Lane, with was to be accessed through the Berg. It was only four years ago that area flooded the railway track, but am more than sure the developers would implement drainage into our more than capable sewage system, not....
Apologies to all, I am probably classed as a newbie still, only in my third decade in the village/town.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Lifetime Resident (19th Aug 2020 - 18:03:03)
Well Liz you are wrong if you remember you will probably not want to at the EHDC consultation when it was first put up they had so many people voted for it there was not enough room on the map for their pins. I no you are going to say it was fixed because that’s what the Parrish council said not true.At the Neighbourhood Plan meetings the same applies. I think the vast majority of people in Liphook would like it to go ahead. I am the 3rd of six generations and all voted for it..I cannot get my head around your reasoning about 600 houses on this land impacting on the square. All the houses will be in walking distance of all the schools station shops and all the other amenities. To get to the A3 all the cars will go down the link road and Longmoor Road to go North South West and East. No vehicles need to go through the square to access any where. Compare this to 600 houses at Highfield School and the Chicken Farm all traffic has to go through the square to access schools and the A3 a night mare. We must not let the National Parks and EHDC completely ruin our Beautiful village our community deserves better I am all for saving our open spaces and lovely parks like the South Downs New Forest Weavers Down ect ect but not a piece o f waste farm land.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Joe (19th Aug 2020 - 21:39:48)
Lifetime resident, I have attended all the same meetings as you, but obviously, when at those same meetings, the planners and consultants leading those meetings told all the audience that planning considerations and policies precluded Bohunt Manor land from having 600 houses built upon it, you were taking a comfort break.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - MM (19th Aug 2020 - 22:33:41)
Interesting to note that over 360 local people have already signed the petition registering their opposition to housing development on the SDNP in our parish.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Jane (19th Aug 2020 - 23:57:28)
If this does go ahead can we have the Skate Park moved over there please
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Colin (20th Aug 2020 - 01:52:28)
Wouldn’t make a difference if 300000 signed it, petitions have been invented by the ruling class to give people the impression they have some power, we are all singing into a stupid website and ticking a box whilst the developers etc crack on with their plans... job done for them
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (20th Aug 2020 - 07:56:40)
Can anyone think of a better place for development in Liphook? Direct access to the A3, join Longmoor Road with the old A3 and you've got direct access to the railway station. The square would hardly be used by the new residents. As for the argument of "Liphook can't cope" there's bags of room here for new amenities. I think the village people should stop whining and rather than see this as a negative thing turn it to our advantage.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Joe (20th Aug 2020 - 09:20:50)
What everyone is forgetting is that the Neighbourhood plans's job is to find EXTRA houses to those that have been put into the EHDC s plan, so far from being the end of development it means you will have 600 on top of those planned for the Chiltley Chicken farm site and a few smaller sites which are also in the plan, I think along the Headley Road. It will not be long before lifetime resident begs for more roads to cope with all the traffic. The SDNp have already said they would reject a neighbourhood plan from liphook with that site in it.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (20th Aug 2020 - 12:05:47)
The S.D.N.P. can still be over ruled by the Secretary of State for the environment. One thing I would really like to know. When this small part of Liphook was engineered into the South Downs National Park, is that what the land owners wanted?
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - er (20th Aug 2020 - 12:14:16)
It is worth noting that the Medical centre, new country park, as well as the horribly 'business speak' worded 'comprehensive package of landscape and biodiversity enhancements' etc come under the heading:
'Some early initial ideas for Westlands Park include...:'
I seem to recall at the Sainsburys Estate we got beyond the 'early initial ideas include' stage to the 'we promise you will get'... a new swimming pool stage.
But once all the houses were built that reverted to a final a 'unfortunately it's not really affordable' stage and the matter was closed.
So I reckon the 'some early ideas include' stage isn't worth much.
I'm looking down the long list of some early ideas half hoping to see 'world beating hotel and theme park centre with Trump golf course' or maybe 'international space hub' I don't know anyone got any more ideas they could stick on the 'some more initial ideas' list?
PS I'm neither for or against, I simply don't know, I'm resigned to our town becoming a city but let's keep to the FACTS please, 600 houses, everything else is wishes!
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Helen (20th Aug 2020 - 16:05:21)
Thanks, Jamie for the below. I'll spread the word.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Joe (20th Aug 2020 - 17:11:36)
The Government encouraged Neighbourhood plans to sort out the housing at local level. The SDNPA national Park policies and National Park Plan itself makes reference to the bohunt manor land being a rejected site for many good reasons. Their plan was was passed by a government inspector. It will not be overturned just to enable developers to make money. The neighbourhood plan has to abide by certain guidelines such as Planning policies.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (20th Aug 2020 - 19:15:54)
Do you know the answer to my question Joe? Yes or no will suffice.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Mike (20th Aug 2020 - 22:00:46)
I just read my pack from Harrow Estates and couldn't believe it! More total nonsense from developers who want to ruin our village for profit.
Everyone keeps talking about Bohunt Manor but the truth is in the new name, Westlands Park. The proposed development goes all the way up to the house called Westlands on the Longmoor Road. It nearly goes as far as the Deers Hut!
The same plan can be found on the AECOM report on the Parish Council website. The link is bramshottandliphookndp.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/200731...
The proposal is BLNDP012 described as Land South of Longmoor Road. The conclusion in the Report is
This site is an integral part of this region of the South Downs National Park as a large area of open countryside visible in long distance views. Its development would be contrary to key policies in the SDLP. In addition, there are a large number of constraints including BAP Priority Habitats, area TPOs, proximity to heritage assets and a SINC. It would constitute an inappropriate extension of Liphook into the National Park. The site is not suitable for residential development.
So Joe is absolutely right.Thanks to the National Park we can hope to drive along the Portsmouth Road through the Square and onto the Longmoor Road with beautiful scenery, not a housing estate.
And what about these "early ideas for Westlands Park"
A medical centre when our GPs have said for years that they can't afford it without huge funding from the NHS which is closing medical centres, like in Bordon, not paying for new ones.
A Western Link Road which will "alleviate traffic from The Square". Utter nonsense . If you lived in one of the new houses near the Deers Hut or down to the Links, how are you going to go to the Lloyds Bank or chemists, the doctors' surgery or to the Co-op, or the fish and chip shop. By driving through the Square of course!
600 houses on the so-called Westlands Park means 1200 more cars in the middle of Liphook.
So let's thank God we had the good luck to be right by the National Park and keep enjoying the view.
I have just signed the on-line petition and will post my card saying No No No tomorrow morning!
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Joe (21st Aug 2020 - 00:13:01)
D whether or not landowners want their land in the Park is not a matter of choice.
The boundary was chosen to be there. When the Coxes bought the land they immediately sold off the main house to IML and hived off the land into a bvi trust.
Mr Northcott presently lives in Foley Manor although obviously also has other properties he lives in too. I have met him and he appreciates the wildlife and glorious landscape of the surrounds to his Manor house presumably one of the reasons he bought the place. Why do you not pose the question to them. Part of the marketing blurb for the failed applications extolled the virtue/ financial benefit of owning a house in the National Park.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (21st Aug 2020 - 07:22:18)
Can anyone tell me what crops are grown on this farmland?
The aerial view we all have of it looks like grass. Good for grazing the livestock of Wickham Horse Fair perhaps but little else.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - MM (21st Aug 2020 - 07:43:06)
The last crop grown on the land was maize.
Since 2013 there has been no crop and the land has been left fallow with occasional hay making.
This lack of use for farming has resulted in encouraging wild life to return including flora.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Anon (21st Aug 2020 - 07:54:37)
Up until 2004 the land was farmed, rotated between arable and livestock. The estate was sold in 2005 where the coxes lived until they sold the Manor House to computershare in 2007. Draw your own conclusions as to why the landowner doesn’t farm it now!
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Ian (21st Aug 2020 - 08:41:01)
I expect this post is just going to go round and round in circles. Those that want the development won’t change their minds and those that don’t want it won’t change their minds either, both sides will speculate with often incorrect information and the tone of the thread will get increasingly agitated and hostile. Still I guess it fills empty lives!
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Anon (21st Aug 2020 - 09:48:30)
I was filling in the blanks rather than trying to be pedantic but tone gets easily lost on social media! I would add that the fields behind the Manor House that are within the proposal are still livestock farmed with sheep and kept neat and tidy, yet the fields seen from the road are left to look tatty. Crafty in my book!
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Anon (21st Aug 2020 - 09:55:19)
On another note, why not put the houses on the foley part of the proposal and leave the bohunt fields as park? That way the developer wouldn’t have to pay the uplift to wwf.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (21st Aug 2020 - 11:08:59)
Joe, I am looking at the concept of any national park from a landowners position, not just this proposal. If a farmer has a farm which is no longer financially viable, he could always sell it off for housing. Plenty of examples of that around here. If the farm were in a national park then that option isn't there, so what does the farmer do? No one is going to want to buy a farm that is no longer viable. The farmer's only course of action would be to sell the farm at a greatly reduced rate. Unless of course there is provision within the national park ethos to step in and buy the farm at full market value so that the farmer is not out of pocket? After all, it would be the national park preventing the farmer from realising his asset to it's full potential.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - MM (21st Aug 2020 - 12:22:49)
As at noon today over 500 residents have signed the change.org petition to object to the development of the South Downs National Park in Liphook.
Petition:
stop the south downs national park getting developed with 600+ houses at Liphook,Hampshire
If you haven't signed it yet now is your opportunity to register your concerns!!.
To complement this petition the Harrow Estate's pre-stamped card sent to all households needs to be returned with your objection.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - rolli (21st Aug 2020 - 12:49:47)
@ D - in following your logic then, if anyone has a business that is failing they should be granted a right to get change of use and allowed residential development?? Also, most farmers, whether their farm is viable or not, would love to be able to sell to developers and become instant multi millionaires; this is why we have planning rules and policies. Without them we would be awash with new builds, this applies outside of Southdowns as well as within.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - er (21st Aug 2020 - 13:51:41)
D clearly doesn't get the concept! It is to protect the most beautiful remaining parts of our green and pleasant land for ourselves and other animals small and large (that includes the many deer that amazingly still roam free) that the Tories (the most pro building party ever) decided to create the South Downs National park!!
But if the production of food on farmland becomes an uneconomical pursuit for someone D thinks the landowners should be able to concrete over!
I think the problem is that a lot of landowners would like to do that, suddenly they'd find farming a bore and not profitable enough.
And so we have National Parks!
I quote from Wikipedia:
'The idea of a South Downs National Park goes back to the 1920s,[2] when public concern was mounting about increasing threats to the beautiful downland environment, particularly the impact of indiscriminate speculative housing development on the eastern Sussex Downs'
And whoever it was that showed a level of ignorance, the National Park is not a sort of giant Radford Park where you can go and play ball, most of it is privately owned but if you venture through it you'll quickly appreciate it's unique and beautiful characteristics, I think you'll find most people support the National park and don't want to see it legally challenged by the multi million pound property companies, the government has already helped them enough with the latest laws overriding local planning objections, thank god we have the park on our doorstep at least some of our area is safe (I hope).
Housing isn't needed on the current scale we are building over southern England when we live in a region with one of the lowest birth rates on the planet and the indigenous population is shrinking rapidly (as each generation passes away), Nearly half of planning permissions the large developers get they don't build on anyway! (don't slap me with a fake news sticker anyone just look it up!).
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (21st Aug 2020 - 13:52:21)
Rolling, my post contains nothing of what you say in yours.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Joe (21st Aug 2020 - 17:11:36)
D In answer to your question, I moved to my current address in 2003. Some of the land has since been put into the SDNP. Far from being upset, I am pleased to have the extra protection. The Cox brothers were property developers from Rogate when
they bought Bohunt Manor. They then put the land into a BVI trust and sought planning permissions straight away. Just because you have land in the National Park does not mean you have the choice of farming or housing development. I am proof of that.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (21st Aug 2020 - 19:30:43)
er, my post was a comparison as to the possible disadvantages of being a farmer in a national park, that is all. While Joe has given me a polite and informative reply to my question (it was addressed to him after all) you have decided to belittle me. What you expect to achieve from this only you know. In hindsight, I realise maybe I was trying to be over ambitious and that my post may not have been at everyone's level of intellect. For this I hope you accept my most sincere apologies.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - er (21st Aug 2020 - 22:29:03)
D, I was merely critiquing your previous post, nothing else, it was nothing to do with you personally, I don't even know you, so don't stress! I am entitled to reply robustly even if I have not been personally addressed, this is a public debate, the editor sets the ratings levels, I'd say my comments were PG at most!
To be clear, I at no point made any 'decision' to belittle you and I'm sorry if you felt that way.
PS are you the same D though, who earlier in the debate wrote: 'Joe, you carry on with your daft conspiracy theories.'?
(I ask with an open mind as there are so many letters being used by posters I understand some are duplicated).
PS your last sentences to me though would suggest you are no stranger to the barbed comment or sarcasm, oh I feel belittled ha ha (no not really, as long as we keep it civil a little edge without malice is fine by me in debate, I draw the line at nastiness which I don't think either of us get involved with).
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (22nd Aug 2020 - 12:47:02)
Given your comments to me, er, I don't think my response was unreasonable. All my posts have been in the form of a conversation with another person, not criticizing others contributions for the sake of it. One thing puzzles me, if the land can't be built on because it's in a national park, why bother with a petition?
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Joe (22nd Aug 2020 - 13:32:06)
The petition is so the developers realise they will not win over public opinion. If the Neighbourhood plan people see it they will realise there is opposition to this plan and not entertain this idea. There is a nationwide director of a buiilding company on the neighbourhood plan. His house is called Westlands.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - MM (22nd Aug 2020 - 17:10:12)
Joe
Correction to your post
There is no 'nationwide director of a building company on the neighbourhood plan' steering group.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - M (22nd Aug 2020 - 18:08:58)
@ Joe
My understanding is there are 7??? current members of the public on the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group and none of them are Directors of a Building Company and live at a house called Westlands. Please check the NDP website to confirm. When I checked I did notice that there is a Member who is active in the SOS Bohunt group, so maybe he is as much a cause for concern regards a conflict of interest as the non existent Director of a Building Company?
Although there is a petition against the proposal, quite right if people have that view and want to show solidarity with others........... quite why it was started by someone who doesn't actually live in Liphook I find strange. It says he lives in Hindhead so has no reason to worry about housing in the local community at Liphook and the benefits it could bring them, although I appreciate he might have an opinion on building in the SDNP........... but when I just looked there were only 550 people who have signed it (how many are actually resident of Liphook I don't know) out of 8000/9000 residents who live in Liphook That's around 6% ???? of residents and is no where near a majority who oppose the proposal. Take out those who have signed who don't live in Liphook and it is likely to be even less!
Also there is no "Petition" in support of the proposal so it's very difficult to get a balanced view.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but they should make that opinion by studying the facts. Do some proper research to see the full picture would be my suggestion.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (22nd Aug 2020 - 20:06:17)
If he's happy to have this on his doorstep how can anyone else complain? In think it's very public spirited of him. What a jolly decent chap.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (22nd Aug 2020 - 21:44:36)
So, MM and M, could this be the new "WESTLANDS AFFAIR?" I'll look out on News at Ten for an Irish journalist in a herringbone coat.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Joe (22nd Aug 2020 - 22:43:05)
I did not say he was on the steering group he is on a working party. One of the proposed sites is his. Check through the Aecom report. He lives on the longmoor rd in a house called Westlands. Being on the housing working party he has a vested interest.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Mike (22nd Aug 2020 - 23:35:29)
This is quite interesting.
Joe didn't say there was a 'nationwide director of a building company on the neighbourhood plan' steering group. He said "there is a nationwide director of a building company on the neighbourhood plan. His house is called Westlands."
.
And he is quite right. The owner of Westlands is a nationwide director of a building company and he is a working party member of the neighbourhood plan committee. And he was a member of the neighbourhood plan steering group from when it started in July 2016 until it was reformed by the Parish Council a year later.
You can see all this from the minutes of the steering group's meetings on the NDP website. For some reason the minutes only go up to December 2019 but it will be interesting to see if the owner of Westlands went to a neighbourhood plan meeting at which Mr Northcott's Westlands Park proposal was discussed.
What is really worrying is that the owner of Westlands has put forward part of its land as a building site.
The proposal is BLNDP011 and is described as "Paddock and stables land - Westlands, Longmoor Road. Liphook GU30 7PB. The proposed land use is Housing and offices.
So the owner of Westlands is a working party member of the neighbourhood plan and has put forward a proposal for houses and offices, effectively as part of the proposed Westlands Park. The name is a bit of a give away.
Well done, Joe, for finding out about this. I do think the Parish Council should tell us just what is going on. They could start by putting the minutes of this year's meetings on the Parish Council's website.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - M (23rd Aug 2020 - 15:55:55)
@ Joe
I appreciate you didn't say this "Director" was a member of the NDP Steering Group but it did infer it, to me at least.
I have checked the NDP website and can see no mention of him as a Working Party Member at all, although it does appear the website hasn't been updated much recently.
If he is a working party member then it would be nice to know where you have found that information so we can all see it.
As far as I know there isn't actually a working party for the Housing Group anyway.
@ Mike
I agree with you about the "Director" being a previous Steering Group Member 4 years ago but not since or currently.
I found minutes for 2020 on the website but didn't find his name anywhere as attending. As a working party member I don't believe they have any voting or decision making rights anyway.
I can't see mention of "Westland Park" being discussed at all. I did see it minuted in one meeting that no discussion with developers will occur until advised to by the NDPs Consultants Feria. It looks like that hasn't happened yet, from what I could see.
I agree that anyone who has a conflict of interest must notify that at any point where it is relevant, and mustn't take part in any decision making that comes under that conflict.
This is as true for a site owner/developer as it is for someone on the other side of the fence, ie: SOS Bohunt members on the Steering Group or working parties.
Hopefully this is occurring and all is above board, but with the historic record of our Parish Council, in regard to openness and transparency, I'm not sure.
I too checked out the AECOM Report and site listings.
The "Directors" site doesn't appear to be part of the "Westland Park" proposals. In fact the "Westland Park" proposals don't appear to have been submitted to AECOM and the NDP as a complete site. Strange, I think, considering it's been around for so long in it's many guises.
Maybe it's time for some fresh blood on the NDP?
I've considered it myself but the wife has advised she would cut a couple of bits off if I ever get involved in local politics.
How about considering the Eunuch route with me Joe and Mike????
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Ian (23rd Aug 2020 - 17:40:29)
Referendum !!! What’s the point? As a nation our track record for accepting the outcome of these isn’t encouraging!
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Mike (23rd Aug 2020 - 20:32:15)
Thanks M
I did the Parish Council a disservice at least to some extent.
The minutes of the February 2020 NDP meeting are on the website. They show the owner of Westlands as being present as a working party member. He is also referred to as a working party member in the exempt minutes of the December 2019 meeting.
Unfortunately the Parish Council has not published the exempt minutes of the February 2020 meeting. The Agenda said that the purpose of the exempt session was "To discuss draft AECOM's Site Assessment Report" It would be interesting to know what the owner of Westlands said about the Harrow Estates proposal, or about his own proposal.
Of course he may have withdrawn from the meeting when these proposals were discussed but unless we can see these exempt minutes we won't know. The only way to find out may be for you and Joe to join the NDP as you suggest! I'm afraid my wife probably would cut a couple of bits off if I did.
The main point is still as Joe said.that a nationwide director of a building company is on the housing working party of our NDP committee (I'm assuming that Joe is right about it being the housing working party) and attended an exempt meeting about site assessments. He has made a proposal for houses and offices on his land immediately beside the land proposed for housing by Harrow Estates. And we are not allowed to know what he said at the meeting. It may have been nothing at all but we should be told.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Pete (23rd Aug 2020 - 20:33:44)
@ Ian
whilst many don't accept the referendum your probably referring to that lack of acceptance is known as free speech. Either way the results of that referendum haven't been overturned and its going to happen so pipe down, you got what your wanted so no point moaning about those that might have disagreed with you. Interesting to see even the Daily Mail now suggests a No deal is a bad thing, did they suggest that was the case before? no. of course they didn't
Anyway I digress from the subject here.
@ Liphook future referendum
This post isn't a referendum, its a post from a person that doesn't want more houses built, those houses are needed, and the big bad wolf (whom probably built your own house many years ago) wouldnt be wanting to build anymore if there wasn't a need for them. Sure we can all wine and moan that they wont provide the services around them, but guess what? which comes first? yip... homes, you cant build a new school a new road etc without first having the homes in place and the residents living in them.
Finally, re a petition, give me a break! the pointless distraction of a ruled population. Money talks and population walks, this debate will bounce off the plans of the developers etc like a fly off a car windscreen.
YOU GETTING THE HOMES WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Mike (23rd Aug 2020 - 20:40:14)
Thanks also to Ian
You're quite right about there being no point in a Referendum, but it can't happen anyway! Someone, perhaps it was you, Ian, mentioned Feria who advised the NDP Committee. I found their report on the NDP website when I was looking for the minutes. The link is
Pages 48 onwards are titled "Allocation of land for development in the South Downs National Park"
Basically it says that the SDNPA or the Planning Inspector will reject any neighbourhood plan that does not comply with the National Park's planning policies. Which the Harrow Estates proposal doesn't. So the government won't pay for a Referendum to do something which is not allowed even if half the world votes for it.
Mr Northcott and the British Virgin Islands company, GVI, will keep trying because there is so much money involved -.hundreds of millions of pounds for 600 houses in a National Park. But we in Liphook would be better served if the NDP could promote a few small sites and oppose any major ones in or out of the National Park.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Joe (23rd Aug 2020 - 20:40:14)
Thanks now for not telling me I see daft conspiracy theories. No the NDP website has not been updated. The working parties have their own meetings they are then reported back on by the steering group leaders. Only the steering group meetings are minuted. Perhaps at the start better minutes were kept. I did consider joining at the beginning but it has already taken far longer than it should have done to even get as far as they have. Also we the taxpayer are funding all the consultants etc.
The term Referendum on the developers liturature should give you a clue as to their ability to mislead! They are not holding a referendum.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Dq (24th Aug 2020 - 21:42:24)
So is it happening or not i cant be bothered to read through
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Joe (25th Aug 2020 - 07:53:38)
It is a proposal which has come up regularly over the last 15 years and not yet succeeded. It has raised it's head again now because of the Neigjbourhood Plan. The SDNPA have said they would not approve this site for 600 houses, their policy is to protect the landscape. The neighbourhood plan have employed consultants telling them this site would be rejected. Planning changes in the pipeline for next year may make this site even tougher to achieve. Hopefully this helps.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - E (25th Aug 2020 - 12:00:14)
If you want a small taste of what you will get If development takes place on the other side of Liphook ie Chicken Farm ect try going through the square today. We must get this link Road .This new Development will supply it.Do not listen to the stupid people that want to save a piece of redundant farm land.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (25th Aug 2020 - 12:52:43)
When one looks at the map provided and sees all the development that has gone on elsewhere in Liphook I think it selfish for people to object to the proposal. All this twaddle about this part of Liphook was put in the new national park to protect the flora and fauna I don't believe. More a case of so people can't build in my back yard. Typical Liphook, no community spirit. I for one am lobbying the Secretary of State for the Environment as to the farce of placing only part of a village/town on the edge of a national park.
Would be interesting to know all the conversations that led to this anomaly. But that I don't think we'll ever know.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Anon (25th Aug 2020 - 14:49:15)
Objecting to a massive development proposal does not make one selfish nor stupid thank you very much. The main objective is to feather the nest of two already wealthy people.
The bohunt land is only redundant because they are deliberately making it so and as for the foley farmland, clearly not redundant.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - P (25th Aug 2020 - 15:11:59)
Just tried to get from one side of Liphook to the other don’t bother all roads blocked. My vote goes for this Development we must get some Roads around Liphook and as this is the only one that can supply this we must support it.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - liz (25th Aug 2020 - 16:07:17)
D
You obviously have a very low regard for the people of Liphook so I can only assume you don't really care what happens in the village.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - MM (25th Aug 2020 - 17:26:41)
D
I think your lobbying to the Secretary of State regarding the boundary of the SDNP will fall on deaf ears!
The boundary to the SDNP in LIphook is set in stone.The SDNPA will not countenance any changes because it would open the flood gates elsewhere especially in the Wichester,Brighton and Eastbourne areas.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (25th Aug 2020 - 18:28:33)
I appear to have got the complete wrong end of the stick, Anon. I thought the objective was to build houses. As for "feathering the nests of two already wealthy people" well, that's just the socialist politics of envy. If they've worked hard for it all their lives good for them. I didn't call anyone stupid, on the contrary, contributers on this thread are far more well versed on these issues than I am.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Anon (25th Aug 2020 - 20:38:43)
No d, you didn’t call anyone stupid, e did, you called people selfish. The developers objective is to make money not about making Liphook a better place to live, this is just a very sexed up proposal. I too have nothing against chaps working hard and making lots of money, good for them as you say but I do object to being hoodwinked with false promises. I agree that from above it is the logical expansion for the village but personally I want Liphook to stay just that, a village. Yes the square is infuriating at times but it’s nothing compared to pre bypass days. Fact is, at some point this will probably go ahead in one form or another.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (25th Aug 2020 - 21:45:10)
On the contrary, Liz. Most of Liphook is becoming over developed and this area is under developed. So where would you put another six hundred houses in Liphook then Liz?
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (25th Aug 2020 - 22:00:54)
I've had a thought, (honest!) I know thre are exceptions to the following, ie you only pay national insurance above the threshold, unfit people and women didn't do national service etc, but:-
National Service........applies to everyone
National Trust...........preserved for the nation for all to enjoy
National Health Service.......available to everyone
National Insurance.........paid by everyone
National Park........a lot of it is privately owned and not open to everyone.
So my question is.....Is "National" Park really the correct title? It suggests they are open to everyone for everyone to enjoy, and a lot of it isn't.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Joe (25th Aug 2020 - 23:55:15)
D I think you have been brainwashed into thinking there is a " need" for 600 houses in Liphook. There is not, plus it is not up to us to decide that the areas deemed worthy of safekeeping for future generations should be trashed to make developers their profit in building the next tranch of rabbit hutches. Plus, some of your National Ideas are a bit skewed. National Service was not for everyone, it lasted for a very few years after the 2nd world war for young men only. Not everyone pays National insurance, only those with a job earning over a certain amount of money. National trust? You pay for membership. National health service? We pay for that ourselves out of N I contributions and income tax.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - J (26th Aug 2020 - 01:58:20)
E, you are deluded if you think that the so-called "relief road" will actually provide any relief! "Relief road" is merely a euphemism. It will essentially be an access road for the new houses.
A new access road for 600 houses is highly unlikely to reduce the traffic in the Square. On the contrary it is highly likely to increase the traffic significantly and bring the village to a total standstill!
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (26th Aug 2020 - 07:41:17)
Joe, I did mention some of your points ie. National insurance threshold etc. but never mind. It's my own fault for trying to be intellectual.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - liz (26th Aug 2020 - 08:06:34)
D
I wouldn't put another 600 houses in Liphook - we have built more than our fair share in recent years and musn't forget the major development in Bordon which is also having an impact.
In general the only people who believe that Liphook would be more 'balanced' by this development are those trying to divert attention from the possible development of the chicken farm and, of course, the developers themselves. The developers would like to convince us that their plans are altruistic while objections are selfish. It's all about marketing.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (26th Aug 2020 - 08:32:16)
My only criticism of this otherwise excellent proposal is the name. Liphook is now a middle class area. Fifty years ago you moved to Liphook because that's where the council put you. Nowadays people move to Liphook because they can't afford to live in Haslemere. No one on this thread would want to live at Hollybrook Park, no one on this thread would want to live in Leigh Park. So I'm surprised at the name "Westlands Park". (I'm focussing on the word "park", I just know somebody is going to ask.) Surely something like "Westlands Meadow" would be better. Or, in keeping with the modern trend of celebrating a rose tinted past that probably never existed anyway, what about something like "Gypsy Meadow" in celebration of the many gypsy encampments that existed along Longmoor Road at the time. The name "Westlands", nothing wrong with it at all. But when I go past that house I think of helicopters, Michael Heseltine and John Cole.
I wish the people behind this scheme every success (if you go along with my suggestion for a name a small fee would be nice, ta.) Those against it, if the National Park is "set in stone" as has been suggested, why are you so worried?
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - liz (26th Aug 2020 - 09:37:58)
D
You have a very negative/odd view of Liphook and its history.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Joe (26th Aug 2020 - 10:29:15)
D, the professors of Oxbridge I am sure have given out all the bursaries this year
for the coming academic year. Never mind I am sure lesser universities are waiting with anticipation for your application.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (26th Aug 2020 - 14:07:10)
I'm not really with you , Joe. Universities are way out of my league but I'm sure you mean it as a compliment. Thankyou.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Jay (26th Aug 2020 - 15:12:37)
I think the issue should be viewed from an environmental and moral perspective, never-mind the pro’s or cons for our village which is too narrow a perspective, eg ‘I want a new road to take the extra traffic generated away from the square’ seems to be the only assured pro, if you could call it such.
If we as a country allow developers to concrete over National Parks, what’s the difference for South American countries cutting down the Amazon for cattle farming? It’s the same environmental/ moral dilemma. I think we would all agree the Amazon shouldn’t be razed for cattle farming (unless maybe you are Donald Trump), so we need to lead by example rather than preach to others about saving the planet/environment. To those who think building in National Parks is ok I suggest examining ones conscience first.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Joe (26th Aug 2020 - 15:16:38)
In your previous post you made reference to yourself trying to be an intellectual.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (26th Aug 2020 - 16:02:18)
Joe, oh yes I see now. Not as intellectual as I thought, eh?
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Tom Hotspur (27th Aug 2020 - 08:38:48)
Without a doubt there is a concerted effort to push this planning through. A cohort of development supporters some with a pecuniary interest will manipulate and bend the rules to achieve their nefarious aims. Sadly, they treat the residents condescendingly trying to blind them with glossy pamphlets, slick presentations, and strings of wampum. The old sayings beware Greeks bearing gifts was never truer.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Confused (27th Aug 2020 - 10:41:04)
The mystery Tom Hotspur raises his head. Now let’s have a guess one of the Parish councillors that were on the SOS Bohunt Manor original team or the SOS Bohunt Manor active member that is on the Neighbourhood Plan committee he should not be allowed to stay on it. Or a rival Developer as Joe could be or could it be Joe. It seems that all the posters that are against this Development have a connection or a grudge none seem to want to plan for the future of Liphook. As I see it The Neighbourhood Development Plan is to try and plan for the future listen to the community find out where the majority want Development to take place regardless of where that is if that happens to be in the National Park then we must find a way to make it happen. As for saying you can’t build in the Park the rules say if it benefits the community then it could be considered . I see in last weeks news they are going to build a Large Housing Estate and an incinerator plant in the National Park so you can build in the Park.As for it not having a link Road it is the suggested option 5 from HCC which I wish had been in place this week with the traffic lights in the square causing chaos.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - liz (27th Aug 2020 - 13:16:17)
Confused
You say "It seems that all the posters that are against this Development have a connection or a grudge none seem to want to plan for the future of Liphook." How could you possibly know that even it were true? Possibly because you believe each poster is not who they say but someone you know to have a grudge. No wonder you are confused.
Just because people do not agree with your plans certainly does not mean they do not want to plan for the future of Liphook. Quite the opposite - it means they have thought about it and do not have their heads turned by glossy marketing brochures.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - MM (27th Aug 2020 - 14:07:19)
Confused
You seem to have a great interest in this debate.
May I suggest that you apply to join the Neighbourhood Development Plan Steering Group as they are anxious for more members of the community to join them and finalise the Plan.
I'm positive that your input would be most welcome
Here is your opportunity to further the democratic process and let your own thoughts be formally registered.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - MM (27th Aug 2020 - 14:23:32)
Confused
You refer in your post to the proposal to construct a large waste incinerator in the National Park.
I assume that you are referring to the recent application by Veolia UK to construct a waste recycling plant next to the A31 close to Holybourne near Alton.
For clarification the site for this proposal is outside the South Downs National Park and not subject to planning permission from the SDNPA although they will probably make comment to both EHDC and HCC
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - er (27th Aug 2020 - 14:42:44)
Dear fellow Liphookonians,
Having followed as much of this rambling thread as I, in my latter years, could possibly cope with, I have decided after a hard shift at work to nonetheless sit down and use my inexpert knowledge to clarify some important points for us all, as such I have carried out some ground breaking ‘armchair’ research on your behalf, armed with a hot mug of cocoa of course, with the aim to finally nail, once and for all, the definitions of:
1) Conflict of Interest.
2) Relief Road.
So, starting with:
1) CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
In the context of local committees etc, it is to be expected that people have different ‘interests’ concerning the issues and there’s nothing wrong with that, on the contrary, it’s seen as a benefit to have experience and it’s a requirement to be ‘interested’ in the topic!
After a few minutes not too challenging research I’m now able to present er’s very own 3 Levels of Interest List:
a) Interest in the topic
b) Notifiable interest in the topic
c) Conflict of interest
At this point there is nothing wrong with any of them, it’s completely normal. The test is how the interested parties and/or the committee/directors etc handle it.
I won’t go into a heavy analysis here, but I’d hazard a guess that ‘Member of the Bohunt SOS Group’ would (in general) be a b) level interest and ‘Owner of Land that I’d like to develop’ at c) level.
This is complex and debatable (beyond the armchair analysis) and has to do with ‘vested interests’ or ‘financial interests’ v personal, social or community interests where no personal financial gain is expected.
Still there is nothing wrong with any of them, but if level c) is a possibility, it is now hoped that the member either recuse themselves from any vote or discussions on that point, or if in doubt seek advice or a decision from the Chair/Directors etc.
Only if that doesn’t happen is there the potential to move to Level d) (and we don’t want to go there!).
Moving on to the Liphook Relief Road!
2) RELIEF ROAD
Here I quote the first definition of ‘relief road’ I found (I haven’t in this authoritative analysis, time to delve any further) so I give you: ‘a road taking traffic around, rather than through, a congested urban area.’
To establish whether a road through the proposed new estate would constitute a relief road (remember the definition), I have yet again carried out exhaustive analysis.
Using pencil and paper I have a complete plan of the centre of Liphook in front of me. It appears there are some 6 main roads converging on the Square (which is anything but square, certainly in my drawing).
Assuming, (for the sake of carrying out no real-time analysis) that at peak times they each pump the same amount of traffic into our historic little piece of real estate, the only question is how much traffic coming along Longmoor road would choose to divert through the estate to Portsmouth Road and visa versa, so indicating how much ‘relief’ it may provide to the Square.
Would traffic going from Longmoor Road to Haslemere Road (and beyond) choose to drive a more circuitous route through the housing estate, cross Portsmouth Road (old A3) up Station Road past all the shops, to the narrow junction with Midhurst Road (where you could now expect lengthy queues), then where? Back to the village, to Sainsbury’s (maybe) or over the narrow bridge along the narrow, bumpy Midhurst Road and onto the equally narrow, wing mirror challenging race track that is Chiltley Lane, just to have to execute a rather hairy right turn back onto the Haslemere Road? (remember the definition: around, rather than through a congested urban area). Bear in mind people who drive to the station to park and catch the Red Eye to the office usually compete to be there by around 6am when the Square is empty, we are all sleeping and there is still a parking spot, so don’t add much to rush hour traffic for their privileged western lifestyle!
From a quick survey (consisting mainly of me) the answer is overwhelmingly probably not!
As to the theory that the perhaps 1200 adults that would move into a 600 house new estate would all be walking everywhere or taking the train, the reality is likely to be that as many will be tradesman with vans, others working in towns and villages for miles in every direction and then there’s the private school run mums!
I need to take my meds and go lie down now, hope you enjoyed, there are some serious points in there (I think) and long may the arguments run!
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (27th Aug 2020 - 14:48:39)
Liz, the comments you direct at Confused I could easily direct to you concerning YOUR negative, derogatory, uninformed comments you make about me. Don't you think? Would you be making these negative comments against me or Confused had we been against this proposal? Probably not.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Tom Hotspur (27th Aug 2020 - 15:39:29)
‘Confused.’ You certainly are! Your cabal seem to have multiple ‘sock puppet’ accounts. Your group take great delight in being agent provocateurs. You systematically attack anyone who holds opposing views. Democracy does not exist in your world unless it complies with your aims and objectives. The people of Liphook are not sheep to be herded by a small group of disreputable people. Have a wonderful day.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Barrett Holmes (27th Aug 2020 - 16:53:01)
This is all irrelevant. The final decision will be made by the ‘dodgy’ Buildings Minister Robert Jenrick. A donation to the Tory Party by the developer should see it through.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Joe (27th Aug 2020 - 18:11:31)
I can confirm I have no grudge against any one because they are a developer, I am not a rival developer I am not on SOS Bohunt I am an environmentalist who wants the National Park protected. I do not see the need for these houses.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - liz (28th Aug 2020 - 15:56:23)
D
AlI I have said is that you seem you seem to have a low regard for the people of Liphook. If you think that is negative/derogatory rather than just an observation then perhaps you should re-read some of your posts.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (28th Aug 2020 - 18:00:20)
Liz, I frequently criticise other people's posts on this website but I have never "made observations" on a person's character or their motives for holding their opinions. For you to make the comments you have made against me and then to ask someone else "how could you possibly know that" is hypocrisy of the first order. If you judge people by a few written lines I'm glad you're not one of my friends.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Joe (28th Aug 2020 - 19:49:03)
D, If you look back at your posts in one of them you called those objecting to the proposal as " selfish" and their environmental arguements " twaddle" , and that the people of Liphook all moved here in the first place because they had been "put" there by the council implying no one would see it as a nice area.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (28th Aug 2020 - 23:52:34)
....and what was your first comment to me, Joe? That I am "possibly someone who posts adverts on community pages for developers, and who shows little understanding of how national parks work". Why? Because you don't like the fact I support this proposal, just as Liz made her catty comments towards me. Then there's some idiot telling me to "examine my conscience." There are clearly some people of a very supercilious disposition in Liphook. Seems to be a trait of those against this proposal. Shame.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - liz (29th Aug 2020 - 09:25:09)
D
You have referred to 'daft' comments, referred to people in Liphook as selfish and 'only living there because the council move them there or because they couldn't afford to live in Haslemere '. Yet if someone says you have a negative view of Liphook ALL the toys come out of the pram!
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (29th Aug 2020 - 10:46:15)
Liz, I really don't see how you can refer to me as "negative" when I am pro-actively supporting this proposal. I am being positive and seeing the benefits of it for everyone in Liphook. As for "toys coming out of the pram", you carry on with your catty comments. I wonder what the people behind this proposal have been doing while we have been here bickering? I'm sure they have been doing more to achieve this proposal than you have been doing to retard it.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Joe (29th Aug 2020 - 11:00:45)
D I am not denying that I suggested that you had a vested interest in getting the Westland Park 600 houses built I know there are people in Liphook who have personally invested in this land.
I stand by my comment that you did not seem to understand the purpose of the National Parks.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (29th Aug 2020 - 11:59:25)
I accept your point fully, Joe, and to be honest you are probably correct. Given the difficulties in building on this land (national park issue) would a possible alternative be to have it as one mobile home site? I don't know how many units could fit on this site but the landowners would soon see a return on their outlay. The land would remain untouched as it won't be being built on, and most important of all people get a roof over their heads. Some of these mobile home sites look quite nice. Were it not for the ground rent issue I would have one myself. Mobile home sites aren't unusual round here after all, there used to be several along Longmoor Road before Bircholt Road and Hazledene Road were built. Round about 1972 if I remember.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - liz (29th Aug 2020 - 15:02:57)
D
Being positive about the proposal does not necessarily make you positive about Liphook particularly bearing in mind the other things you have said.
So now it's on to scaremongering . Firstly the mobile home site , next it will be the incinerator plant. Those were brought up ahead of the Sainsbury's development! I find it quite amusing.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (29th Aug 2020 - 19:04:06)
Liz, I am merely suggesting a way round the problem of the South Downs National Park's presumed refusal of this development on the grounds of they allegedly won't allow this land to be built on, that is all. This is only a proposal, no planning application has been made therefore I really don't see why the objectors are getting so excited. I don't understand your term "scaremongering", why should anyone be scared of a mobile home site? I was told today that I am incorrect in referring to them as "mobile homes", they are now referred to as "park homes" (I hope I have not inadvertantly offended anyone who lives in such a home.) In this case the name "Westlands Park" would be most appropriate. At the end of the day this is private land, therefore I really don't see that this proposal is anyone's business other than the relevant landowners. I wish them well.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Joe (30th Aug 2020 - 09:48:05)
D this old chestnut is always trotted out. Why would landowners trying to make millions from house building need a bit of ground rent from caravans? They will earn fortunes from building on it. It has been purposefully left empty for 10 years.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (30th Aug 2020 - 13:00:58)
It must be awful being a landowner. You try to do what's best for you and your family with what could be the only asset you have, and then the locals come waving their pitchforks trying to claim some sort of moral ownership on this land and try to frustrate your every move. It must be like having your nieghbours tell you what wallpaper you can and can't have.
I'm sure the Westland Affair will rumble on. I will bid Joe a friendly farewell so he can go and gather his chestnuts.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - George (30th Aug 2020 - 13:31:20)
Love all the experts on here that are totally ignorant of planning policies, guidelines and laws. Even more amused at those getting their knickers in a twist because of that ignorance
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (30th Aug 2020 - 15:24:22)
On the contrary, George. I've submitted several successful planning applications with E.H.D.C. in my time.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Paul Robinson (30th Aug 2020 - 17:00:35)
Lets face it,.
Who would possibly want to buy a house in a village peopled by a bunch of feral 'begrudgers' trolling this so-called Community Site, hell bent on dissing anyone with an alternative opinion?
Paul Robinson
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Joe (30th Aug 2020 - 18:47:47)
I am sure I feel desperately sorry for the two landowners D, both have British Virgin Island tax avoiding trusts and plenty of other assets. I have posted on this very subject before but D has a mental image of the barefoot poverty stricken landowners.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (31st Aug 2020 - 08:17:01)
I only wish I had their business acumen, Joe. I am hoping to be offered a job by them as public relations officer or something on account of my outstanding skills in tact and diplomacy. The phone hasn't rang yet.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Rog (31st Aug 2020 - 09:09:25)
The easiest way to destroy Liphook village centre would be to allow the building of a so called "relief road,” or as it should be called the Harrow Estates money making highway. I don’t suppose anyone working for Harrow Estates lives anywhere near Liphook, so this proposed development would not effect them in the least.
The only reason to build this “relief road” is to make access for the building of 600 houses in the National Park and set a precedent for further developments to be built in the National Park.
The building of a “relief road” to try and alleviate through traffic at the Square is unnecessary, yes there can be a ten minute delay morning and evening, the relief road with the attendant 600 houses is like taking a sledge hammer to crack a nut!
What is required in the Square is a controlled crossing, the existing crossing in the Square, is not controlled and therefore at peak times has a constant flow of pedestrians, preventing the traffic to pulse though the Square.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Me (31st Aug 2020 - 10:24:32)
ROG you are have your head in the sand like many more people. If EHDC gets it’s way we will have upwards of 800 Houses built at Highfield and the Chicken Farm all will have to come through the square great. They have no plans to get round the square. We. Desperately need a road system around Liphook. HCC gave us some suggestions 5 in all. One being Longmoor Road to Portsmouth Road on this piece. of land which would have a significant impact on traffic through. The Square with the Hundreds of vehicles coming in on the Portsmouth Road wishing to access the A3 and Bohunt School. The same. goes for traffic coming in on the Longmoor Road wishing to access the station Sainsbury’s Highfield School and Churches School.We must save our Square we need to. Plan for the next 15 to 20 Years.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Eric Benson (31st Aug 2020 - 17:22:35)
In September last year I started a Tailback thread under the heading of 600 houses and an EHDC District Plan/ Large Sites consultation.
Most recently there are to be found on Talkback, two new threads on the same subject. In the context of all three threads I note the recent addition by Mr. Roger Miller, a member of the BLPC’s NDP sub-committee of BLPC and the link to BPLC’s commissioned AECOM report of July 2020, so just issued. It is some 118 pages long, to include appendices, and is worthy of study by anyone who takes an interest in how Liphook as a village/emerging small town might develop over the next 15 to 20 years. I have not been through it in detail as yet, there is a lot to read and then even more to cross refence but it does expose one key problem for Liphook – the South Downs National Park splitting the village into two separate areas for planning purposes, each with very different aims for future housing – the SDNP (a very large area) says 4750 new homes in the park for the period ending 2033 and EHDC, or at least those bits not in the SDNP - 10,456 homes between 2017 and 2036….
This split is blighting longer-term development plans for the village as a whole. A question to be asked - should all of the area of Bramshott & Liphook parish council be within or outwith the SDNP, and if so, which is to be preferred?
Regards
Eric
P.S On my very quick read I would not necessarily agree with the assessment by AECOM that the Bohunt Manor and South of Longmoor Road lands are ‘not suitable for residential development’ but nor indeed do I think that the number of houses suggested in EHDC’s draft local plan is needed at all.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Resident (1st Sep 2020 - 08:37:21)
Eric Benson
I agree with your assessment that the Bohunt Manor land is suitable for 'residential development' if we do have to have more houses in the village.
It has to be the logical place and certainly better than the suggested Highfield Lane housing, which would be a traffic nightmare for us in the Berg estate and others on our side of the village.
We and many others supported the planning application at Bohunt Manor some years ago for development there, as it included so much for the community and not just housing. I don't agree with housing on the Longmoor Road.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - SB (1st Sep 2020 - 15:04:54)
All that wasted land at bohunt manor is the best place for redeveloping for liphook, with the extra facilities & hopefully a relief road to take traffic away from “the square!”
The berg estate was built on open land & was a big thing for us then! So come on & open your eyes & mind to the future of liphook!!!!.... 🌈
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Joe (1st Sep 2020 - 22:55:09)
I had heard the Berg Estate was built on a former arbouretum belonging to a big estate. That is why all the trees have a protection order on them, this would not be the case on previously undeveloped land.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (2nd Sep 2020 - 08:51:27)
That was Chiltley Place, Joe.
The trees that were practical to save were kept, but inevitably a lot had to go if they were in the way. An arboretum isn't the best place to plan a housing estate after all.
A lot of these trees were of special interest, a house I did gardening at when I was at school had a huge eucalyptus in the garden. In later years that tree caused no end of problems for subsequent owners trying to secure a mortgage.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Joe (2nd Sep 2020 - 13:09:42)
My reply was to S B who claimed the Berg Estate was built on open land.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (2nd Sep 2020 - 15:50:33)
Sorry, Joe. There are a lot of similarities between Bohunt Manor and Chiltley Place though.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Paul Robinson (2nd Sep 2020 - 19:53:18)
Now here's an interesting fact. How many people are aware of the fact that the 'Berg' estate was named after the builders of the houses. They were called Berg.
Unfortunately they went 'pop' two thirds of the way while developing the estate.
As a result the land at the end of the site that was undeveloped was sold off and eventually became what is now known as the 'Chicken Farm'.
But for this the land would have been developed for housing and the traffic generated by this would have been accessed through the Berg estate
Paul Robinson
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - MM (2nd Sep 2020 - 21:18:15)
Paul
An interesting fact.
When I moved to Liphook many years ago I was surprised that an estate of houses would be colloquially named after a bankrupt developer. It's very unusual insofar as you wouldn't describe your home as being on a Wimpey Estate.
Hey ho!
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (2nd Sep 2020 - 21:24:39)
Yes, Paul. I do.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - M (2nd Sep 2020 - 21:58:24)
@Paul.
Yes you are correct the name Berg Estate comes from the builders. They didn't go bust 2/3rds if the way through the build, I believe they went bust right at the end of building the "Phase 2" (Willow Gardens) where just a couple of those houses were built by another builder.
I believe the Chicken Farm was always there (I'm sure a resident who has lived in Liphook longer thsn me will confirm that) long before the houses on the Berg were built.
There was no access from the Berg Estate into the Chicken Farm.
I believe the owner if the Chicken Farm bought one of the houses bordering the Farm and then bought some of the garden from a neighbour (A BLPC Councillor at the time) and then sold on his house, minus some of his garden.
Hey Presto he owns land giving access from the housing estate into his Chicken Farm, and hence able to develop the Chicken Farm for housing without using Chiltley Lane.
Good on him, I wish I was in a position to do something like that but alas I don't own a Chicken Farm....lol!
We also mustn't forget that the Chicken Farm site is a Green Field/ designated Farmland producing a food crop (Chickens), in exactly the same way as all the other proposed development sites in our village, including the "Westlands Park" proposal. It's just this one is the furthest away from all facilities, and the A3, and will have the greatest impact on The Square at peak time. It will provide absolutely no benefits to the village except upwards of 200 more cars trying to get through The Square.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Joe (2nd Sep 2020 - 23:25:34)
No the designation of the " chicken farm is very different in planning terms. The chicken farm has been designated as brownfield land in the same way as the former king george hospital site was which was turned into the Bramshott Retirement Village and Care home. Bohunt Manor land was termed an area of special landscape quality and included in the SDNPA. You cannot compare the two
places. The Chicken Farm has large industrial type buildings, the Bohunt Manor land does not. The Chicken Farm has been deemed suitable in the EHDC local plan for up to 120 houses. The Bohunt Manor land has been rejected from the SDNPa's plan. So the sites are not similar at all.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (3rd Sep 2020 - 06:41:54)
If I remember the chicken farm site was rejected on the grounds of bad access whereas the proposed site has excellent access. As Joe rightly says, you can't compare the two. I always thought the presence of any building automatically deems a site brown field, be it an industrial building or a manor house.
The Westland affair rumbles on with no sign of landing.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - M (3rd Sep 2020 - 07:30:28)
@Joe
You are incorrect in saying the Chicken Farm is Brownfield. It is classed as Agricultural Land.
Yes it has been allocated for 100 homes in the Draft EHDC Local Plan but it is a green field site, just like all other sites in Liphook.
Do you have a view on its suitability in regard to access to facilities and impact on The Square at peak times?
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Joe (3rd Sep 2020 - 08:04:27)
Good D agrees on something. One point though, Bohunt Manor house is in totally separate ownership, now owned by a company running a music school. The house itself was never intended to form any part of new building plans. The land was separated off when the WWF sold everything after inheriting, the house was then sold to IML seperately who then used it as offices for a few years.
The chicken farm has a bungalow on it which had always been included for the chicken farm site. As for access there is an unfinished access point at the back of the Berg estate. The argument about distance too and from liphook would also apply to residents of the Berg.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Resident (3rd Sep 2020 - 08:59:24)
In response to M and Joe, the Chicken Farm will be a traffic nightmare for us in the Berg if it is developed. They intend using the estate roads through our site, changing the character of the Berg forever. There will also be safety issues for pedestrians, especially on the railway bridge closer to Sainsburys.
My views posted 1st Sept to Eric Benson are that the Bohunt Manor land is the most logical place for any houses IF WE HAVE TO HAVE THEM and fact that the owners previously included so many other things for the community, not just houses.
The suggestion for 600 more houses on the Longmoor Road on Mr Northcott's land, however, would be hard to justify.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Lifetime Resident (3rd Sep 2020 - 10:28:41)
Been away just looked through WOW lots of views. Thought I would try and answer Ms question about the Chicken Farm Yes it’s always been there. All of Liphook was Farm Land. I will try to enlighten you Gunn’s Farm, Malthouse Meadows, The Maltings, Meadow Way, Manor Fields, Colliers Crescent, The Mead, Tunbridge Crescent, Allees Drive, Lowsley Park. I have missed out quite a few but all farm land.
Then you come to Bohunt School grade one Farm Midlands Farm JR LUFF a very old Liphook Family Compulsury purchased by HCC kicked out of Liphook. Even the OSU site was park land. And it goes on There is no difference with this site FARM Land. All the proposed sites are Farm Land But the difference is it’s in the right place to benefit the community all the other sites will harm our Square. The Chicken Farm. Highfield School site witch was Shepherds Farm will all impact on the Square. So you have to make your minds up help the community go forward with infrastructure or damage our Square.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (3rd Sep 2020 - 12:48:05)
Those who criticised me when I raised the issue of farms being built on please read Lifetime Resident's contribution.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Lifetime Resident (3rd Sep 2020 - 18:23:30)
Also noticed a lot of posters banging on about Developers making loads of dosh on this site hang on don’t all Developers make money that’s the name of the game if they don’t they go Bankrupt.The difference is these Developers are willing to give us some Infrastructure No Other Developers Have Given Us Anything and None Have any in Their Plans . The National Parks people that set the boundaries have made a massive mistake but they are not man enough to own up.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (4th Sep 2020 - 23:43:31)
Lifetime Resident, you mention Collyers Farm. Do you know how far Collyers Farm extended? I know where Collyers Crescent is and I remember a house opposite Manor Fields which had "Colliers" on the letterbox on the front door. This house was demolished in 1978 to make way for the entrance of The Maltings (we didn't moan about new houses in those days). I'm sure the house was spelt "Colliers" whereas Collyers Crescent is spelt with a "Y". Are the two connected or is this just a coincidence?
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - lifetime Resident (7th Sep 2020 - 21:04:03)
Sorry D can’t help you on this one. Even my wife who was born in No 2 Collyers Crescent is at a loss. But I remember my mum saying she lived in Malthouse Farm House when she was little I think before the first war . Grandad was head carter for the Moss Family who I think owned the farm. It was all farm land right down to Lake House. Farm by the bridge.The right hand side was also farm land.Grandad ran Old Barn Farm in Hewshott Lane in the 1914 1918 war where my gran Died in giving birth to her eighth baby. How Liphook has Changed. Perhaps when the Heritage Centre reopens you can find out.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - John (8th Sep 2020 - 23:18:12)
Surely we can carry this nonsense all the way to 200 posts? maybe at 200 posts the big bad developers will be beaten? who knows?
My bet is this post will bounce of the plans like one of the 300 insects do off your car windows on the way to work :)
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Ian (9th Sep 2020 - 08:02:22)
Just trying my luck to be 200, more stimulating than the thread has become
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Joe (9th Sep 2020 - 09:33:58)
The developers have not put plans in. They are waiting for the steering group members of the liphook Neighbourhood plan to endorse their plan and take it forward on their behalf, despite expensive consultants writing reports which tell them it would be a non starter to get around current planning legislation.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - Linda Morris (9th Sep 2020 - 13:32:06)
Dear All
I have posted on a number of occasions previously about getting the new improved surgery built for the village, as this is our family's main priority for various reasons.
The doctors provide a brilliant service but I know they are struggling where they are
This should be top of the agenda whatever the outcome of the referendum
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - er (9th Sep 2020 - 13:48:42)
Ian, so sorry but you blew it mate, I've been waiting in the wings, I think you'll find I'm 200, do I win a prize?
Nope - 201. You were pipped at the post.
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - John (9th Sep 2020 - 18:35:56)
I think Linda got the 200 spot but I also think we should withhold the prize as she thinks this is actually a real referendum that will have an outcome
PS - there was never a prize !
Re: “REFERENDUM” ON THE FUTURE OF LIPHOOK - D (9th Sep 2020 - 21:45:43)
I agree with Linda 100%. I've spent a lifetime not needing a surgery until a couple of years ago, how I need it now. Any of us can go down with a life changing medical situation at any time. Those who aren't bothered about surgeries, chemists and hospitals and the like are usually in very good health so naturally it's not a priority to them, just as it wasn't to me at one time. Sadly, sooner or later, your turn comes. Then you are so glad for the taxes you've paid all your life.
Keep up the pressure, Linda. Don't be put off by the negative comments from people like John.
