|
|
Local Talkback
Talkback allows the local residents and businesses in Liphook to voice their views and opinions about local issues and events - get your voice heard now!
 Post Reply
Talkback Home
Warning: Undefined variable $lastThreadID in /home/liphookdev/public_html/pages/talkback_thread.php on line 48
 |
Parish Council SDNP Comment
- M (17th Oct 2022 10:02:25)
I was having a look at some of the minutes of our local Parish Council and came across what I think is an interesting document that I thought others might be interested in too.
Under the minutes for last months council meeting is the following document (available to everyone via the Parish Council link to the left):
[note]Bramshott and Liphook Parish Council appreciates and supports the purposes and duty of the National Park which are:
Purpose 1: To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area.
Purpose 2: To promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the National Park by the public.
Duty: To seek to foster the social and economic wellbeing of the local communities within the National Park in pursuit of our purposes.
Liphook will have additional housing allocated in the East Hampshire District Council Local Plan, and potentially through our Neighbourhood Development Plan. This will inevitably have an impact on our existing infrastructure, especially on traffic through our conservation area of the Square.
Nevertheless, the Parish Council recognises the challenges facing those who live and work in the National Park in accessing affordable housing and would seek to assist in meeting that need.
Liphook is a sustainable settlement, with a wide range of goods and services, available to our residents, and those in the much wider community. Liphook also has a railway station and access to the A3.
It is felt that the allocation of an element of additional housing through the SDNP Local Plan can be accommodated within the SDNP area of the parish. Liphook services are available to the wider community and It is felt that this could be mutually beneficial, particularly as Liphook is a Gateway destination to the South Downs National Park.[/note]
This seems to be quite a change of stance of the Parish Council as previously they always seemed adamantly opposed to any form of development in the SDNP. With all the comings and goings in the Neighbourhood Plan steering group perhaps there's been a revolution going on in our Parish Council?
|
 |
Re: Parish Council SDNP Comment
- Resident (17th Oct 2022 12:53:10)
Yes this seemed the case at the neighbourhood plan meeting.. Perhaps the councillors that were so against the development on the land behind bohunt school have seen sense at last. The NATIONAL PARK people should work more with the local community who have to live here.
|
| |
Re: Parish Council SDNP Comment
- er (17th Oct 2022 15:01:49)
Gosh, why would the Parish Council vote in and publish a public document on the face of it inviting more housing than is already being sought by District Council whilst not seemingly demanding any assurances of a relief road etc in it (it's that that surprises me a bit!) what a strangely worded document to vote through!
I mean I'm all for helping the National Park but didn't they previously say their housing allocation is sorted for now thanks?
No expert here and never made it to any public
meetings, so I imagine there was some kind of open debate, so call me another armchair critic for sure, probably missing something (all shout brain!) but if that is read in isolation it does sound a bit eager from our guys!
Is this part of a more in-depth Parish strategy to pressure the SDNP to provide a Bohunt through road in exchange for our support for a housing proposal on Bohunt Manor land, which in theory many of us could support. (though I think we'd need assurances that the locals don't subsequently decide it's a rat run and make it 'No Entry Except for Access' see other threadđđđ).
I would have expected, (again without inside knowledge of the state of any ongoing discussions or negotiations) that if any statement were needed at all at the present time, a more robust position might be adviseable, along the lines of:
'Liphook Parish Council is open to potential of taking some SDNP housing allocation in addition to our other obligations, IF certain assurances are given re infrastructure, especially a public relief road, contact us for more details!'
|
| |
Re: Parish Council SDNP Comment
- Resident (17th Oct 2022 23:46:32)
The Parish Council have no obligation to provide housing numbers to be built they only support or object to other local authorities who have to provide housing numbers. The document was in response to a call for sites by the SDNPA, so does not seem to have any meaning in that regard. They are making a general statement. It is up to the landowners to bring forward land upon which they wish to build houses.
|
| |
Re: Parish Council SDNP Comment
- Resident no1 (18th Oct 2022 10:49:16)
To resident yes correct but the Parrish council objected to bohunt manor before it was in the national parks and that carried on until now a change in attitudes seems to have taken place. It doesnât matter if the houses on that piece of land are in the park or out itâs what we can gain from that development that counts i.e. link road sports facilities open spaces rear entrance to bohunt school etc. If the houses donât count to our house quota then so be it.
But we have to have the houses to pay for the facilities - No Facilities NO DEVELOPMENT.
|
| |
Re: Parish Council SDNP Comment
- Resident (18th Oct 2022 13:41:09)
My point still stands resident whichever number, though the Parish council can only make comments which either object to or support something - they are not the decision makers. It is a very general comment and not supporting any particular application or land site. To be supporting of building 600 houses on Bohunt they would have suggested that site is picked for building which they have not. I imagine that the decision makers the SDNPA , are quite capable of reading that as a general comment and not putting 2 and 2 together and making 50 million out of it. The call for sites means who has got land to bring forward for us to consider thatâs all.
|
| |
Re: Parish Council SDNP Comment
- Resident no1 (18th Oct 2022 15:33:35)
Well resident I put a no 1 because you put resident as well just to differentiate. But all planning has to go through Parrish first and they have been against bohunt all through not saying there vote means anything. We have a lot of potential sites put forward but none gives us any infrastructure thatâs the problem.
|
| |
Re: Parish Council SDNP Comment
- AR (18th Oct 2022 16:50:16)
600 houses was put forward for the land east of Liphook , Highfield Lane, Devils Lane, an absurd proposal. The original proposal for Bohunt was for far less housing and more amenities. Perhaps the council now have realised the mistakes they have made over the years. Also you would be very surprised at the amount of say they have in these developments, to the detriment of Liphook. History will not be fair to them.
|
| |
Re: Parish Council SDNP Comment
- Resident x (18th Oct 2022 18:14:51)
A.R. you hit it on the head. Bohunt Manor is the best location for development in Liphook. We have missed out hugely on the opportunities previously offered at this location , but slammed down by the SDNP.
More relevant is that two Parish councillors have consistently stood in the way of what could have been provided by now in the village.
These two councillors, knowing they are now in a minority, abstained from the vote on 26th September:
143/22 SOUTH DOWNS NATIONAL PARK
The council considered and approved a statement in response to the SDNPA
Call for Sites. (Attachment 1)
Proposed Cllr Coyte, Seconded Cllr D Curnow-Ford, agreed by a majority vote.
Cllr Trotter & Cllr Jerrard abstained.
Could someone please let us know exactly what Councilor Jerrard and Councillor Trotter have actually done / achieved / delivered for Liphook during the years and years they have held sway in the Parish Council.
I would love to know.
|
| |
Re: Parish Council SDNP Comment
- Penny Williamson (18th Oct 2022 21:42:16)
Resident x - the short answer to your question regarding Cllr Jerrard's and Cllr Trotter's input for Bramshott and Liphook for the last few years is precisely nothing. All those two is to cause dissent and create problems.
|
| |
Re: Parish Council SDNP Comment
- er (18th Oct 2022 22:15:42)
Resident x, so it seems the statement was in response for a calling for sites from SDNP. Also I'd comment that councillors have every right to vote or abstain according to their conscience and IMHO we should never call them out for doing so.
Personally my original comments stand, what is the point in welcoming new (additional) housing development if we don't at the same time make our welcome conditional to infrastructure development, what are the chances that we get in excess of 1000 new dwellings overall but most of the infrastructure we are yet again left whistling in the wind for? I sincerely hope not, it would be disastrous for the village/town. We need to be crystal clear on this, not again!
These are the assurances we need. Would like to hear feedback from any councillors!
Finally re the last sentence of their statement, can anyone explain exactly in what way Liphook is a 'Gateway destination to the National Park'?
From what I can see we have a busy road to Petersfield, a muddy footpath across a golf course and another one through a large housing estate that was recently fields.đđđ
|
| |
Re: Parish Council SDNP Comment
- Resident no1 (18th Oct 2022 22:20:35)
Spot on penny and Jerrard doesnât even live in liphook. He has attended neighbourhood plan meetingâs when he had no right to be there and cased a lot of trouble. Itâs time these councillors who donât put the community first were voted off the council. These two are not the only ones in the past some belonged to the bohunt manor action group just to thwart any development on bohunt.
|
| |
Re: Parish Council SDNP Comment
- Penny Williamson (19th Oct 2022 09:23:09)
er - under normal circumstances I would agree with you that councillors should not be called out for the way they vote or in this case abstain. However I totally understand Resident x's reason for calling out Jerrard and Trotter for abstaining on this occasion. You obviously don't know the history of these two.
|
| |
Re: Parish Council SDNP Comment
- Resident (19th Oct 2022 13:25:57)
I seem to recall that one of the two councillors recently had to undergo a re-training course because of bullying tactics he employed on other parish councillors within the parish council. Is this correct?
|
| |
Re: Parish Council SDNP Comment
- Penny Williamson (19th Oct 2022 15:09:14)
January 7 2019 Farnham Herald. Cllr Jerrard was accused of breaching five code of conduct complaints which occurred in July, September and December 2017 as well as January 2018 at parish council and NDP meetings. The EHDC sub-committee stated that Cllr Jerrard was censured for "failing to uphold and promote high standards of conduct when holding public offfice". The findings accused Cllr Jerrard of bullying, lack of openness and transparency, failing to remain objective, failing to engage in a respectful and courteous manner or listening to the interests of all parties, failing to work together with officers and conducting himself in an unacceptable manner. Cllr Jerrard was found guilty of all but one of the complaints.
|
| |
Re: Parish Council SDNP Comment
- Kevin Wyeth (19th Oct 2022 17:14:16)
At the NDP Steering Committee in October, they announced they are conducting a review of the 6 potential sites for development. One of which is the Westlands Park behind Bohunt School. 5 are remote sites that will add more traffic, more queuing and more pollution to The Square. They are hinting that there will be a NDP vote in March 2023 but that remains to be seen. My gut feeling is they will not allocate any sites and leave it to EHDC and SDNP to decide where we will have housing to hit their housing numbers. Itâs up to us, the community, to help the NDP team to understand what we want. All NDP and Parish Council meetings are open to the public. 7:30 LMC. Dates are on their respective websites.
|
| |
Re: Parish Council SDNP Comment
- M (19th Oct 2022 17:28:32)
In response to Penny, and the many "Residents", your points are exactly why I thought others may be interested in the Parish Councils response to the SDNP call for sites consultation.
I don't believe the Parish Council needed to respond to the SDNP consultation but to respond in the way they did is a total surprise, considering the stance the Council have had over the last decade with regard to any form of development within the SDNP.
All previous comments have always been completely in opposition to proposals put forward for that part of Liphook. That was not surprising considering some councillors live on Bohunt Manor, and others are/were active members of the SOS Bohunt group.
The current Parish Councillors appear to be the same members from the last few years but their opinion appears to have changed.
I wondered why? Have they seen the light, or do they know something we don't know?
I see there is a Parish Council meeting next Monday 24th. If anyone is interested in asking what has changed then that might be the chance. Unfortunately I shall be away with work so won't be able to make it.
|
| |
Re: Parish Council SDNP Comment
- Resident (19th Oct 2022 17:39:22)
Thank you for this information Penny. If there is one thing I truly detest, it is a bully, particularly where the bully is supposedly representing the people he or she meant to be serving. It has always been said that bullies are actually cowards! This is exactly what is happening in the world right now Putin in Ukraine, Xi in Taiwan and Hong Kong, Bolsonaro in Brazil. We don't need bullies in OUR Parish Council.
Thank you.
|
| |
Re: Parish Council SDNP Comment
- Rick Terskale (19th Oct 2022 21:20:15)
I noticed this evening our local MP has voted against a fracking ban.
No worries though, I expect the Lake and Peak Districts, Yorkshire Moors and Up North generally will bear the brunt.
Letâs make sure we keep the SDNP in the Tory heartlands.
|
| |
Re: Parish Council SDNP Comment
- Resident no1 (20th Oct 2022 12:11:31)
Between them the Parrish council over the last few years and the SDNP have completely ruined our lovely village. SDNP have split our Parrish in two with their ridiculous placing of the boundaryâs. The Parrish council have people on board that donât listen to the community thatâs what they were voted on to do work for the community if thatâs meanâs going against the SDNP for the good of our village thatâs what they must do. We must fight for our lovely village.
|
| |
Re: Parish Council SDNP Comment
- Resident (20th Oct 2022 13:06:05)
The Parish council have no powers on planning they hold a certain amount of influence with EHDC or SDNPA. The neighbourhood plan has to be sent to both the SDNPA and EHDC for approval before It gets put out to be voted on by the public. If either of them find fault with it then the 8-9 years it has already been in the preparation has been wasted. The Parish council have spent a lot of money on it so far so they do not want it to be chucked out, they should just let the consultants finish it who they are paying to do exactly that after all.
|
| |
Re: Parish Council SDNP Comment
- Lisa (21st Oct 2022 15:42:38)
Just reading Penny Williamson's response to 19th October:
" The findings accused Cllr Jerrard of bullying, lack of openness and transparency, failing to remain objective, failing to engage in a respectful and courteous manner or listening to the interests of all parties, failing to work together with officers and conducting himself in an unacceptable manner. Cllr Jerrard was found guilty of all but one of the complaints."
On further research I see that Cllr Jerrard is a member of the JUSTICE AND ANTI CORRUPTION PARTY
Unusual name and never heard of them before, but REALLY?
|
| |
Re: Parish Council SDNP Comment
- Resident no1 (21st Oct 2022 16:09:34)
Lisa you donât no much about our Parrish council. Not very good reading about some of them. It goes back a very long way.
|
| |
Re: Parish Council SDNP Comment
- M (29th Oct 2022 17:34:36)
I posted the Parish Councils comment to the SDNP call for sites and now I see the NDP have published their comment.
[a]https://bramshottandliphookndp.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Appendix-3-SDNP-letter-call-for-sites.pdf[t]bramshottandliphookndp.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Appendix-3-SDNP-letter-call-for-sites.pdf[c]
Available via the link to the left.
I for one think it's one of the best written arguments for the development of the land west of Liphook centre, and not any form of development on the outskirts of Liphook to the east which EHDC seem to be proposing.
Will the SDNP and EHDC get together and come to some sort of compromise and do what will be best for Liphook, rather than both go down their own routes and allocate housing in the wrong place that gives nothing to those of us that live here?
|
| |
Re: Parish Council SDNP Comment
- Resident (29th Oct 2022 21:43:51)
M although I have always strongly suspected you are an EHDC councillor ( who always knows the answer to his own questions) EHDC and the SDNPA have very different housing policies and in the last few years the â duty to co operate died when the SDNPA had their own local plan passed by a government inspector. Just because a developer pleads â extraordinary circumstancesâ for that piece of land does not mean that the Westland Park proposal meets the stringent planning tests. Do not hold your breath either that the boundary will get re drawn in our lifetimes. I have also noticed in the NDP minutes a meeting with Hampshire Highways took place, where they exhibited no enthusiasm to have new roads in the area, and they would have to approve plans for a new road.
|
| |
Re: Parish Council SDNP Comment
- M (30th Oct 2022 10:59:01)
Hi resident, sorry to disappoint but no I am not a councillor in any form, be it district or parish, just an interested local resident.....like yourself, who knows?
If you think I have the answers to my own questions then perhaps my reasons for posting are to try to enlighten other local interested parties in the views, actions and comments of others who themselves are influencing the future development of our village.
I am aware that EHDC and SDNP look at the future of Liphook differently, hence my view that they need to get together and finally try and come up with a cohesive plan for the future development of our village.
At the moment the possible scenario will be EHDC filling up all the available fields to the east of the village (furthest away from all facilities and a drive through The Square to get anywhere) to try and comply with their housing targets. Then SDNP being given a bigger housing target and allocating 600 homes on Westfield Park, as it's a fully-fledged proposal with local backing (from the Parish Council and the Neighbourhood Plan). Not a scenario I would like to see happen. That could amount to up to 1200 new homes in the next 10 years!
HCC have said they will not build any new roads so we are stuck with the status quo, and the main reason why any new development to the east should not happen. Should Westlands Park be given planning permission then it will be the developer that builds the roads, not HCC.
At no point did I say the SDNP boundary should/will get redrawn, only that any development inside the boundary is, in my opinion, the best proposal being put forward and it should be the only major development that takes place in the future within Liphook.
Others might see things differently I'm sure but unless the public know about these possibilities then it will come as a big surprise when the applications are submitted, and everyone cries "why didn't I know about this!"
|
| |
Re: Parish Council SDNP Comment
- resident (30th Oct 2022 23:11:16)
M the reason HCC would not back a new public road is that despite thinking developers would just pay for new roads all kinds of strings would be attached. A developer makes his money and moves on. The local authorities are left with all the ongoing maintenance of these projects so they decide whether the road is needed or not - they have to pass the plans and say yes or no. It is not just a question of money. If the developer builds the road themselves it becomes a private road not a public highway, and the residents of the estate become liable for ongoing maintenance etc. It is decided the other way around. If HCC saw the need for a public road they would then ask a developer for a contribution and draw up the plans themselves.
On a second point the SDNPA do not have any jurisdiction in the built up area of Liphook, their responsibility is the rural part of the Parish. Where they have urban areas to look after eg Midhurst and Petersfield they do build especially on previously developed land eg the King George the 5th hospital site in Midhurst, where the old building was converted and new houses built in the grounds along side. They have been given a different set of housing numbers to EHDC and have no need to build in rural areas they can easily fulfil their quota of houses in the urban areas. Liphook has been allocated I think 120 houses to find but it is not 600. That is just a developers dream.
|
| |
Re: Parish Council SDNP Comment
- George (31st Oct 2022 08:15:25)
This is all very interesting, but I am mainly interested in AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR MY CHILDREN SO THAT THEY CAN STAY IN THE VILLAGE.
Will the Southdowns Park people ('authorities') insist on affordable housing if this site next to Bohunt School is developed?
If 'yes', how many are we talking about, considering it seems 600 houses are going to be built?
Just a thought, would we get any affordable homes if they were built on Highfield lane land which is governed by EHDC?
Thank you
|
| |
Re: Parish Council SDNP Comment
- M (31st Oct 2022 08:55:29)
Resident I do agree with most of your opinions but feel you are inaccurate on some.
If a developer gets planning permission for any form of development then that is what they will build. If that permission is to build a main access road with junctions/roundabouts, that will be used by the general public, then part of the approval would be for the relevant authority to take over the ongoing maintenance of that public highway (with all the relevant negotiations and payments made). I know that most housing estate roads (the smaller, winding access roads to the houses) are now the responsibility of housing associations that residents pay for, but not main arterial roads. HCC would make their own views and comments made but would have to abide by any permission given by the planning authority, who are not HCC but either EHDC or SDNP in Liphooks case. If what you say were correct then no new major development would be able to take place anymore. HCC won't build any new relief type roads off their own back as, lets be honest about it, they have no money to do it with. All the noise about being green and promoting cycling and walking is just a smoke screen being used to hide the real reasons, money!
SDNP have a very small housing number for a very large area so needing to build on green fields isn't required. They do build on green fields but within, or adjacent to, existing settlement boundaries. To bring Westlands Park into contention would need a big increase in housing numbers for the SDNP. Westlands Park is adjacent to Liphooks settlement boundary, it has local support (and opposition) so is feasible and developable but until the government sorts out how they are going to allocate housing numbers in areas like ours is very unlikely to happen.
At this time Liphook has no housing allocation to meet. It has fully supplied the 175 required in the old EHDC plan and EHDC have now gone back on their new Local Plan so no numbers have been agreed. SDNP have given Liphook a zero housing number. The problem Liphook now has is that with EHDC no longer having a current "Plan" we could be open to some speculative major development in the wrong places. The Highfield Estate would love to build 600 houses to the East of Liphook. EHDC didn't include the site in the now defunct EHDC Local Plan but that doesn't mean it will go away. 600 there, 250 at Penally Farm, 100 at Chiltley Farm and 50 on Headley Road make 1000, and then 600 at Westland Park?
They might be developers dreams but dreams do come true.
|
| |
Re: Parish Council SDNP Comment
- Resident (31st Oct 2022 17:01:13)
hi M we are on agreement on some points - especially that one about the SDNPA having no housing numbers for liphook. Your point though about a developers free for all though is not valid as the Park has their own approved plan so they are not likely to have speculative building allowed.
With regards the road SDNPA do not have their own âhighways authority â they still come under HCCs umbrella for that. I agree, talking about walking and going green etc is Hampshires reason not to build new roads. In the blurb from the developer there is no mention of this â roadâ being an arterial road, I suspect all they would be prepared to put in would be a private road. I think even the developer would baulk at the cost and endless permissions needed. How many new arterial roads have been put in recently in the area? There were road improvements made to the M27 to facilitate building I think possibly 2000 houses near Fareham. The new link roads at Bordon were facilitated by means of a government grant.
|
Post Reply
Talkback Home
Please contact us with any changes to entries, or posts that you feel should be removed, ensuring that you include the posts subject. All messages here are © 1999 - 2025 Liphook.co.uk and must not be reproduced elsewhere without permission.
|
|
|
