Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

SDNP new consultation - Editor (21st Jan 2025 - 09:14:06) South Downs National Park consults on its Local Plan Review Public asked to comment on housing plans in the park East Hampshire residents can have their say on housing plans inside the South Downs National Park through a consultation opening this week. The consultation opened on Monday 20 January and will run until Monday 17 March Take the consultation now The South Downs National Park Authority is a separate planning authority to EHDC and prepares its own Local Plan for the whole of the South Downs – including the area of East Hampshire that is inside the park. The Government sets housing targets for the whole of East Hampshire so the number of homes built inside the park through the SDNPA’s Local Plan has a direct impact on the number of homes which must be delivered in the rest of the district. In December the Government increased the mandatory housing figure for East Hampshire from 575 to 1,142 homes a year. This is a 98 per cent increase. We have called on the South Downs National Park Authority to take a fair share of these homes inside the park. Currently the SDNP Local Plan Review proposes around 60 homes a year. National planning policies also require East Hampshire to attempt to accommodate housing from the national park and other neighbouring planning authorities that cannot meet their own targets. Public meetings The South Downs National Park Authority is hosting two public meetings on the consultation in East Hampshire. Petersfield – Wednesday, 29 January between 6.30pm and 8.30pm at Festival Hall, Heath Road, GU31 4EA Liphook – Saturday, 1 February between 2pm and 5pm at Liphook Church Centre, Portsmouth Road, GU30 7DJ Cllr Angela Glass, EHDC Portfolio Holder for Regulation & Enforcement, which includes Planning, said a certain level of development is healthy for towns and villages and without it communities can stagnate. She said: “While a highly protected area, national parks should seek to sustain their communities and avoid decline. To do this they need to provide a reasonable amount of new housing, particularly affordable housing, in key areas such as Petersfield. However, the SDNP Local Plan Review is only proposing to deliver a small number of new homes. “The council is concerned for all residents within East Hampshire and wants the best outcomes and quality of life for all. As such, we think the SDNPA Local Plan Review needs to grapple with day-to-day issues facing local communities and be clear on how it is planning to sustain communities and avoid decline. “While we recognise the landscape priorities of the SDNPA, the needs of the people who live in the SDNP should also be a high priority. "We encourage all residents of East Hampshire, whether living in the SDNP or outside of it, to look carefully at this consultation and respond, particularly thinking of the local housing needs and the future vitality of settlements in the SDNP."

Re: SDNP new consultation - Bill Mouland (21st Jan 2025 - 12:17:16) Worth pointing out that the SDNPA consultation document is proposing a 250 house allocation on the Bohunt Manor land in Liphook...

Re: SDNP new consultation - Local (21st Jan 2025 - 12:43:30) Let’s hope the SDNP get real and help liphook save our conservation square instead of sticking their heads in the sand.

Re: SDNP new consultation - er (21st Jan 2025 - 13:02:04) I'm just wondering if we should buy the line we're constantly fed by politicians that our communities need to constantly build more housing/ housing estates or we'll 'stagnate'. Is this true or are they just peddling a just a building lobby slogan? Are we stagnant by being the size we are and must we always be bigger and busier to remain relevant, I wonder?

Re: SDNP new consultation - Local (21st Jan 2025 - 14:50:28) Bill hope that includes a road from longmoor road to Portsmouth road otherwise it will cause more congestion.

Re: SDNP new consultation - Katie (21st Jan 2025 - 16:21:49) Nope, there is no road proposed so all the traffic will use Portsmouth Road and The Square. I agree with the other poster that we should be wary of too much building in our village. Very soon we will be a town and that may result in a loss of our lovely community. Also, be careful what you wish for. Does this proposed housing development come with the recreational amenities we need? Last time these guys promoted this site ostensibly with recreation facilities, they were only giving some land to the football club who were expected to not only pay for a clubhouse, pitches, flood lighting etc but also had to fork out for an access road to even get to the land!

Re: SDNP new consultation - Local (21st Jan 2025 - 16:58:27) Well Katie we are already a town by population been that way for a long while. As for the plan put forward by the Northcott development it includes a road and open space for the public to use. And a rear entrance for Bohunt school. It’s just down to Bohunt manor to come on board. We desperately need a relief road around the square to access the A3 if this piece of land can provide it we should adopt it straight away but ONLY if it includes a road. There is NO OTHER place a road can be put so it’s time SDNP came to their senses and did something to safeguard our village/town centre which is FAR more important than a un used piece of farmland. We have got to have houses but we must put them in the right place to benefit our community.

Re: SDNP new consultation - Helen (21st Jan 2025 - 20:39:38) The latest plan does not include a road - not going to happen,

Re: SDNP new consultation - Local (21st Jan 2025 - 21:24:39) So everyone that are against using that land for the benefit of liphook where do you suggest putting the houses that we have to accommodate. If everyone made an effort to push for something to benefit liphook then perhaps the powers to be might listen. If they put houses somewhere else it damages liphook it’s not rocket science.

Re: SDNP new consultation - Katie (21st Jan 2025 - 22:49:17) Supporting this development would mean an additional 250 houses for liphook, it isn't instead of the housing developments already being put forward by EHDC. It's not an either/or hence my comment to be careful what you wish for. No road is planned, you would get 250 houses PLUS the EHDC allocations - two separate planning authorities, two separate housing allocations.

Re: SDNP new consultation - Bert Huis’n Feld (22nd Jan 2025 - 09:08:34) For the love of God what do we need another road for…just to bring more traffic from longmoor to the roundabout? Or where else is it proposed to run? And as for football pitches being peddled in the past as infrastructure or recreation just bear in mind that there are around 22 people who will benefit from that at any one time with maybe double that number watching out of a population of around 8000. This site needs to be preserved as our part of the National Park because once it’s gone we no longer have a claim to being at the gateway except via another soulless housing estate! And remember this site is the subject of a number of scams not least of which involved the attempted building of a much needed gospel hall worship centre. Who can trust the owners or building firms involved? The proposal lost me at the mention of traveller pitches…super!

Re: SDNP new consultation - Life time resident (22nd Jan 2025 - 11:16:53) Bert can’t quite understand your post you don’t seem to understand the development of that piece of land. We are not the gateway to the national park that piece of land is private NO entry for the public. As for a road to get from one side of the square to the other when the square is closed for some reason yes please a ten mile round trip otherwise. The traffic coming in on the Portsmouth Road and Midhurst Road is increasing rapidly and most of it go through the square to access the A3 and visa versa . All the Bohunt school traffic would not have to come through the square they would access the school from that road rear entrance. Coaches could have a park for drop off . If we go on like we are, the square will become gridlocked at the moment there is NO way around it . It’s completely idiotic to say roads make more traffic. traffic needs to be dispersed around hot spots ie the square OUR CONSERVATION AREA. Much more important than a piece of scrub land.

Re: SDNP new consultation - Trevor Maroney (22nd Jan 2025 - 12:53:18) I find these old arguments interesting but not surprising - I dread to use the word 'amusing.' Wasn't the Parish Council's Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) supposed to address these issues? The trouble is, as many of us pointed out at the time, it did not contain any PLAN. Those few out of an 8,000 electorate who voted in the referendum for the NDP chose to let EHDC and SDNP decide along with developers where any and all housings should be constructed. So why are you now all complaining about where any such housing shouldn't go? Don't forget, such developments in the national park should be affordable and preferably social housing. I do not consider 80% of market rates - particularly rents - affordable these day, or don't you agree?

Re: SDNP new consultation - Barry Graham (22nd Jan 2025 - 14:37:16) That’s a hell of a piece of scrubland if it’s big enough for 250 houses as well as traveller pitches. Take a good look at EA215…. and familiarise yourself with it. This is no small house building exercise. Traffic surveys have clearly pointed to the main volume of traffic coming from Hill house Hill to Liphook and coming from the Portsmouth Road also to Liphook, most of it is trying to get to the A3 going north via the London Road. A bypass Road built as part of this 250 house development is not going to resolve that.. This area cannot be defined as grey belt or scrubland so stop trying to describe it as such!

Re: SDNP new consultation - Lifetime resident (22nd Jan 2025 - 15:51:42) Barry the land stretches from the new roundabout in longmoor road to Portsmouth Road. It’s little used farm land. Owned by Northcott and Bohunt manor. It’s the only piece of land that can provide some amenities for liphook if handled correctly. EHDC have completely cocked up the planning in liphook for the past 20 years missed opportunities to reduce traffic through the square. Not anyone has suggested any development to help reduce traffic through the square . We have to have more houses according to this government it’s WHERE we put them that going to make the difference. I just can’t get my head around why people are against saving our square the centre of our community. Every where else that has this problem seems to get the infrastructure to help when developments take place NOT liphook. I bet that if all the traffic passing through petersfield went through their square something would be done pronto. The most important thing for liphook right know is to reduce traffic through the square . Now is the time to grasp the nettle.

Re: SDNP new consultation - Bert huis’n Feld (22nd Jan 2025 - 16:15:55) I have read EA215…did so early this morning so i am definitely not confused about what the proposed plan is here. I also read and commented upon the NDP some time back. EA215 is a new addition and we now have the ability to comment upon it again…please go to the link provided above by the editor and object or support it as you see fit. The owners will do and say anything to get this area filled with houses…they have been doing so for years. The poorly thought out labour policy of “build houses, baby, build houses” has no doubt reignited the hope and desire to profit from this piece of land that has been the subject of so much argument. And of course it’s got private property signs…there’s no money to be made allowing the public to use the area without extreme returns from the investment.

Re: SDNP new consultation - Penny Tatler (23rd Jan 2025 - 06:43:41) EA215, which is only a provisional land allocation at the moment, advises 25.2 acres, 20.8 of which to be used for: 250 homes (including custom and self-build), retirement living and care home provision (66-unit care home included within this overall figure) 2-14 traveller pitches Quantity of other uses to be determined. It mentions that development should seek to provide NMU routes linking Longmoor Road and Portsmouth Road (NMU = Non-Motorised User). Vehicular access will have to be provided so that people can get out of the build area and back in again and seems to concentrate on access via the Portsmouth Road. There is absolutely no mention within EA215 of how this site access road, presumably situated between Portsmouth road and Longmoor road, and running through the site, will ease traffic congestion in the centre. As mentioned above, the really heavy traffic is headed to and from Haslemere and Bordon or to the northbound lanes of the A3 via London Road. That traffic will always have to go through Liphook centre. The road that Liphook Resident so gushingly refers to as the panacea for rush-hour traffic congestion in the centre is actually an essential access route which is only mentioned in passing in the proposal document; there cannot be any new houses without it. It is not a bypass and will not in any way contribute to drastic traffic volume reduction. If it were intended to be a relief road then this would be glorified in highlights within EA215 with its own separate paragraph instead of being mutedly referred to as vehicular access, hidden amongst the numerous NMU references which are emphasised repeatedly.

Re: SDNP new consultation - JRM (23rd Jan 2025 - 07:32:31) Lifetime Resident/Russ The site E215 is solely on the Bohunt Estate. It does not include the Northcott estate. Therefore no road between Portsmouth Road and Longmoor Road will be built. Worth going to the exhibition to find out where the travellers pitches will be located.

Re: SDNP new consultation - Very interested (23rd Jan 2025 - 10:28:39) So reading all the posts it seems we are back to square one. No infrastructure for liphook as usual. When you look back over the years we have had nothing major done that’s why we are in this mess. Another thing all the developments that have taken place over the past few years a great many where has the developers contribution to EHDC gone not spent in liphook. If it’s been spent elsewhere ie other communities why can’t liphook claim from other communities such as Alton petersfield etc for our infrastructure we are in just as much need if not more so. It seems that EHDC and the SDNP couldn’t care less about our conservation square being destroyed by traffic. As much as I applaud the national parks for what they do they seem to have a blind spot about supporting communities that are under threat as liphook is .

Re: SDNP new consultation - Re (23rd Jan 2025 - 13:41:15) Just looked at this plan. What an idiotic plan nothing for liphook except more traffic through the square lovely. What are these people thinking about they must be sitting in their tiny offices and have totally no idea about liphook. SDNP wake up and do the right thing for liphook. Liphook has suffered long enough from very poor planning the community have been telling the powers to be for years that the traffic situation through the square has become intolerable. It has fallen on deaf ears ears and it looks that way again.

Re: SDNP new consultation - Freddie (23rd Jan 2025 - 20:19:03) Good evening. I am concerned that newbuilds and the general expansion of Liphook, is making the village appear as one large, featureless estate. No centre, shops or life. Coming from the train station, it feels like a wilderness, a place forgot. Does the council care about this? Liss seems to bringing life to their community, why can’t we? Is there something or someone blocking a Liphook revival.

Re: SDNP new consultation - Re (23rd Jan 2025 - 21:05:34) Well said Freddie . Tell that to the SDNP and EHDC it’s fell on deaf ears for years. If it wasn’t for liphook in bloom liphook would be just a mess another dormant lifeless town. It used to be a fantastic place to live a fabulous community it’s being ruined by very poor planning.

Re: SDNP new consultation - Charlie (24th Jan 2025 - 09:49:13) @Re Yes blame the SDNP and those who drew up those ridiculous boundaries. 57% of East Hampshire is in the National Park which leaves the other 43% to find sites for housing. Do not blame EHDC because planning laws are made by the NPPF and EHDC have to implement them. Under this government if EHDC do not find sites to fulfil their housing quota then National Government will step in and do it for them.

Re: SDNP new consultation - Malcolm (24th Jan 2025 - 12:22:57) Funny thing very few people seem not to want to save our square and bring it back to life. The traffic situation has got worse year on year which has had an enormous effect but no one seems to care. They seem more worried about saving bits of land that nobody can access very sad . The SDNP have not helped by placing the boundaries where they have splitting the Parrish in two totally against public opinion. We are growing at a fantastic rate but there seems to be no forward planning for the years ahead. The neighbourhood plan was supposed to be the thing but again fell short because the voice of the majority was ignored. So at this time we are in no man’s land nothing being done to help liphook.

Re: SDNP new consultation - Penny Tatler (25th Jan 2025 - 06:46:58) Improved infrastructure includes: 1. A better and more regular bus/public transport service 2. More shops, especially street facing shop fronts, with rent/rates set such that they do not deter new businesses and allow existing businesses to thrive 3. A more reliable electricity supply so that we avoid the frequent power cuts we have. EA215 in its current form does nothing to improve this. There is only the box-ticking provision of so-called green infrastructure (another SANG and meaningless references to landscaped greenspace) which offers nothing that Radford Park (largely empty at the busiest of times) already gives us. EHDC/HCC have put all their efforts into Bordon and as such Liphook will never be a shopping hub. Unfortunately, no-one will risk establishing a non-supermarket food business (for example) such as an independent butcher or delicatessen because Sainsburys, the Co-op and now Premier have stifled this and shop rents as always are too high. The stratospheric increase in on-line shopping hasn't helped. Drastically reduce shop rent or base it upon a reasonable percentage of profit and you may have some takers. This is what other town centres have done to try to prevent them teetering on the brink of total decline. As for the SDNP boundaries, they were drawn up years ago and are not going to change. 250 houses/care home/traveller pitches will only add to traffic congestion and whoever offered the land for EA215 as an additional site allocation did so with a view to capitalising on the call for more housing and that is all we are going to get.

Re: SDNP new consultation - JRM (25th Jan 2025 - 07:48:07) Penny Thankyou for your excellent post which clearly summarises the situation. From an analysis of the posts on this subject the majority agree with you. Well done!

Re: SDNP new consultation - Malcolm (25th Jan 2025 - 11:11:08) Yes penny very good post . The Bordon new town has had a huge impact on liphook something the developers said won’t happen but it has as the people of liphook told them. We have the train station the A3 to London but no real access to them. They were told to put in an access at headley road bridge to allow the huge increase in traffic to get on and off of the A3 without going through liphook as usual fell on deaf ears. Liphook unfortunately has taken the brunt of development in the area even down to traffic coming to liphook from the liss area because they can’t get onto the A3 at the ham barn roundabout again because of poor planning. SDNP have made things worse with their head in the sand attitude not listening to the community they seem hell bent on destroying liphook and it’s wonderful centre.

Re: SDNP new consultation - Steve Miller (25th Jan 2025 - 19:22:10) Well I've said it before on this forum and will likely say it again in years to come but the decision to put the boundary of the National Park so close to the centre of the village looks increasingly irrational as the years pass, not least because it prevents EHDC making a balanced judgment about the compatitive merits of potential housing sites I suspect that this only happened because few people at the time recognised the impact it would have on future development of Liphook. Yes the current owners of the Bohunt land are out to make as much money as possible but so are pretty well all people in their position. I rather doubt that Easterton had the interests of the community in mind whilst they promoted the recent development at Lowsley Farm. I disagree with Penny that these boundaries won't ever change whilst accepting it is unlikely in the short to medium term. However I would be surprised if these fields remained undeveloped in say 25 years from now.

Re: SDNP new consultation - Malcolm (25th Jan 2025 - 22:09:13) Yes Steve you’re quite right everyone blames the developers but it’s down to the planning department at EHDC to implement the right development for liphook they can tell the developers to go back and revise their plans to benefit liphook. Case in point lowsley they should have insisted they put in the road from headley road to longmoor road and review their plans to exit on to that road. And why is it that if the land owned by Northcott and bohunt would have been used for development if it had been out of the park it’s the same land in or out so surly SDNP should review their view to develop this land for the good of liphook and the community.

Re: SDNP new consultation - London Road (26th Jan 2025 - 09:51:18) Yes an Excellent post from Penny on 25th Jan. Thank you Penny

Re: SDNP new consultation - Re (26th Jan 2025 - 11:43:37) Well it looks like it’s about 99% the SDNP fault that liphook is in this plight. And they still won’t admit it and do something about it .

Re: SDNP new consultation - charllie (27th Jan 2025 - 15:00:31) Just a few comments/observations. There is little point in improving bus/public transport if the facility is not used. All I ever see, apart from school buses, is buses not even half full being run at great expense. If the service is to be improved smaller buses should be used and people should use the service. Use it or lose it. This also applies to shops. Shops close not only because of high rents but because they are not used, because the stock is usually more expensive, for good reason, than the larger shopping outlets including online. This is why butchers and greengrocers close as well as other small shops. A great shame I agree. I agree with Steve Miller when he says that "the decision to put the boundary of the National Park so close to the centre of the village looks increasingly irrational" as are many of SDNP's boundaries. I disagree with Penny's statement "as for the SDNP boundaries, they were drawn up years ago and are not going to change" because the fact that they were drawn up years ago does not mean they cannot or will not be changed - they should be updated as the world has changed - people and decisions need to adapt. It's called progress

Re: SDNP new consultation - Re (27th Jan 2025 - 16:42:52) Charlie all correct. But again just an observation don’t think there’s a post that supports trying to do something about the traffic through the square one or two supporting a road through bohunt and Northcott land which is the only real solution on the table. But of course SDNP are not helping in that. Such a shame that all the departments councils etc can’t get together for the benefit of liphook and it’s wonderful community.

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home