Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

**CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Jane Ives (19th Jul 2013 - 13:22:41) I hope many of you have had a chance to read the SDNPA's comments on the 'Future of Bohunt Manor Estate' thread regarding the pre-application from Bohunt School. This is only the start and I, along with fellow Parish Councillors, feel very strongly that we should continue the public debate that was started at the recent meeting. There have been many calls to action via this website and the public meeting on 9 July showed the depth of feeling in Liphook against development on Bohunt frontage land. We would really like members of the public to get involved and to start action so that our voices are heard to preserve our village in the way we would wish. We can facilitate the setting up of a group with a meeting place and assistance from parish councillors in an advisory capacity. The South Downs Society have also offered support. Please contact me on jives68@gmail.com if you want to be part of the action. We will also post here with any meeting dates/times and any updates.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Rob (19th Jul 2013 - 16:41:11) Count me in. Liphook is a lovely semi-rural village. Lets keep it that way.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Jane Ives (19th Jul 2013 - 16:53:26) If you want to email me your details I would like to set up a list of everyone who is keen to get involved. Thanks :-)

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Eneida Nelson (19th Jul 2013 - 19:36:59) Jane if I can help in any way I'm certainly willing to give it a go!! PS I tried to contact you on your e-mail link, but it brought up an old mail address of mine which is no longer active. My e-mail address is bibila@hotmail.co.uk.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Phil (20th Jul 2013 - 13:34:45) Will email you shortly, but please count me in along with my wife and sons. Thank you for organising this. We are willing to help as best we can.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - dawn (21st Jul 2013 - 19:06:30) I like the banner at the top of talkback. Well done Alan where did that photo come from? Did anyone go to the GVI presentation today? Hi Dawn, Google streetview.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - dawn (21st Jul 2013 - 19:56:44) I am a dinosaur. Don't know how to work streetview. I wonder if I can see my house on it? Has anyone been this weekend to the Bohunt Frontage Land day being run by GVI on behalf of the mystery owners?

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Peter Richardson (22nd Jul 2013 - 13:04:43) It is great that there is this "call to action" and I do applaud it and agree with the sentiments and purpose. I would urge those involved to ensure that good planning reasons for not building this development of houses, not just the usual "we don't want more building in our village etc) are put in place as part of the strategic plan as it must be remembered that if an application is submitted and at the moment it is at the stage of "pre-application" discussions, the SDNP could and probably will turn down the application. However the developers could and probably will, go to appeal and possibly withdraw the "sweeteners". The final decision would then rest with an independent inspector who will look at the big village picture in particular the site and proximity to the village, access infrastructure etc etc.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - bdavies (22nd Jul 2013 - 13:23:32) ...and this is another dilema. The problem is that the already approved building offers nothing of any real substance back to Liphook other than more housing. Bohunt Manor, in its current format does offer something but it will ruin that part of the SDNP and it still means another 152 houses and another school which will mean more traffic. For some reason Bohunt Manor cannot replace any existing planning permission(s) already given. The only way you can have the Bohunt Manor sweeteners is to take ALL of the housing, both already approved and that which GVI wants to replace designated national parkland with. That IS too much!

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Jane Ives (22nd Jul 2013 - 13:29:52) Peter Thank you for your comments and you are absolutely right. I trust you have read the Parish Council's objection letter which was published in full on this website under the thread titled 'Future of Bohunt Manor Estate'. The letter started with outlining what the objections were under the following headings. 1. The purposes and duty of the South Downs National Park. 2. The National Planning Policy Framework 3. The policies of East Hampshire District Council. 4. The views of the residents of Liphook. Please read the letter if you want to see these objections in full and also the SDNP response. I have so far received a number of emails from people wishing to join an action group. I will be contacting all shortly with a view to setting up an initial meeting.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - jeanette kirby (22nd Jul 2013 - 14:41:59) These are NOT 'sweeteners'. ALL developers have to make a compulsory contribution to pay towards infrastructure to cope with the new development. This includes fixed payments towards education, medical, roads etc. GVI are just making out that they are 'giving' something to the community when in fact they would be obliged to in any event. BUT only if we allow them to bulldoze us (pardon the pun) into submission. If Liphook has to have a small amount of additional housing to comply with the revised JCS then this could be achieved on sites within the settlement boundary. Then those developers would have to pay their set contributions which would be used to have the extra facilities where the community actually wants them! We DON'T have to have houses on Bohunt Manor to get community facilities. Don't be meek and think speculative developers can get away with fancy marketing and promises which might or might not actually happen. Join the Action Group and let them see that we mean it.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Mike G (22nd Jul 2013 - 15:11:03) Dawn, Even if you were not a dinosaur you would still be out of luck. The Google Street View camera car did not go down your lane, I'm afraid.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Basil & Denise Briolas (24th Jul 2013 - 20:09:28) Hi We immigrated a year ago from NZ. Please email us details.We are very fond of Liphook and enjoy it's serene surroundings.We are South African born of Greek Nationals. What is the strength of the group to date? Kind Regards Basil and Denise briolas.basil@yahoo.co.uk

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Mary (25th Jul 2013 - 10:28:21) Jeanette , you say that all developers must provide money to pay for community facilities. If all this money is available to us for community facilities, why then do the doctors here say they need a new medical centre and why does the football club say they need a new field and clubhouse and why are so many local people still waiting years for an allotment? [Jane] as a councillor will you please see to it that the Parish Council put these facilities in place now, seeing as many housing schemes have taken place or been given permission in Liphook over the last ten years? If you have all this money can you please start spending it on our community? If in fact there is no money to provide all this, will you at least guarantee that these facilities are provided by the developers of whatever other site in Liphook that you obviously prefer for the additional JSC housing? Might we know where this site is by the way, and also where you want these community facilities to be put?

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - A. Ryan (25th Jul 2013 - 15:34:05) The poultry farm is a very obvious choice for developers, as the road is already in situ, and as there has been a lot of movement going on there one would assume this will happen sooner than later. Development of Liphook has been going on for years ,right through the sixties and seventies, as one can see by the type of housing that was put up. It became more sprawled out as Station Road was developed and that basically became a "village" of its own.The development of Sainsburys and the subsequent new houses have brought the two areas together. The junior school and new houses formed the Avenue, then we had the Berg Estate which was a vast development. My great grandmother had one of the first houses built along the Haslemere Road, where the farm used to be and which my great grandfather worked on. Maybe she was the start of all the buildings that have happened. To all those people who do not want new houses, myself included, how many of you would live here if it was not for the developments? Liphook has not been a little village for a long time and people are deluding themselves by thinking it is. With more housing we are going to need more facilities otherwise the trains out of Liphook we be heaving. Yes it will be interesting to see what these other developers will bequeath to Liphook. As a matter of interest how many people of the village had access to Bohunt Manor, I expect like me you never got to see anything on the land. No body wants more developments in Liphook, but they will happen now and in the future, as much as we dislike it. We need to have input as to the needs of the village, as we can not say no to everything. Gone are the days when Coytes was the nearest thing to Sainsburys and we all got our sweets from the Candy box.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - liz (25th Jul 2013 - 17:06:44) We are not saying no to everything. We are saying no to the Bohunt Development. Development in Liphook had in the past been piecemeal (well, up to Sainsburys at least) but is accelerating - so we have to think more carefully about each new chunk of land that is developed. If there are alternatives, why build on our newly designated piece of the National Park? The land was included for a reason. - Shame about the Candy Box though - but it would probably be a bit small for Liphook nowadays!

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Jeanette Kirby (26th Jul 2013 - 08:17:35) Mary raised a very interesting and relevant question about how the money raised from developers contributions is used for community facilities. In general the money goes to District Council and it is then distributed to the community - but the community has to show evidence of needing that funding. For example, some of the money due from developers of Silent Garden and Lowsley Farm has been set aside to be able to fund the additional places needed at Liphook Infant and primary school as the new houses are built. Bohunt School on the other hand want to build an academy school much larger than the Liphook school and this will attract pupils from outside the area with the associated increase in traffic (two or three times more traffic). Yes a medical centre would be nice but in the real world the money to pay for this basically has to come from the existing surgeries and the money just isn't available. The existing surgeries between them meet the needs of this community. People on the waiting list for allotments expect to pay a nominal annual fee for a plot (less than £50 pa as a rough guide). The parish council has to maintain allotments and expenditure ends up being far greater than any income generated. The allotments on Bohunt were not going to be given to the Parish Council. GVI wanted to sell them at a very high figure with a clause that they could take the land back. The allotments could easily prove to be a white elephant to Bohunt School, taken back by GVI at a later date with the aim of the land used for more houses. The developers at Bohunt Manor appear to be attempting to bypass the system in an attempt to win over this community with vague promises. All GVI have done is gained planning permission for allotments, medical centre and football pitch. They are not obliged to GIVE any of this land to Liphook. In fact they have only vaguely promised that the land would be released once permission for houses is given. The SDNP, EHDC, local residents (and indeed the Government) have said that as a National Park the landscape and conservation value should be protected. What Liphook needs is a couple of small pieces of land in suitable places. One for allotments and one for sports facilities.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Eneida (26th Jul 2013 - 11:11:16) The two existing surgeries are in exactly the right places to serve both ends of the village at the moment. A combined Medical Centre on Bohunt land would create enormous problems for the elderly and others, as it would be a very long walk for people living on the Headley Road end, for instance. They would have to drive or find some sort of transport...so creating even more traffic.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Jeanette Kirby (26th Jul 2013 - 11:55:44) Quite right Eneida. When I said that the idea of a medical centre was nice I should have also gone on to say - but not isolated from the rest of the village and in a dangerous place for pedestrians to cross. Have you signed up to the action group yet?

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - ellie (26th Jul 2013 - 12:13:48) I noticed at the recent meeting the medical centre has been altered to being described as a health centre - there could be a lot of difference in what is proposed, and it may not have anything to do with doctors in Liphook. Do not forget it was the previous owners Geriwell Management who put the plans in for the medical centre then immediately after the PP was obtained they sold on to GVI. This land is all about speculation not facilities for Liphook.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Mary (26th Jul 2013 - 13:42:34) My point Jeanette, was that if there is lots of money available from development past and present in the town, as you say there is, to spend within the parish, why do you and the parish council not just get on with it and provide the sort of community facilities being talked about here? Surely people who would use and run such facilities have already shown that a local need does exists? Otherwise why would they ask the bohunt manor for land to do so? Has anyone else offered them land instead? You also missed answering my question whether you will ensure that any other development site in the town will be asked by the parish council to provide at least the same facilities as bohunt manor? If not, why should the extra housing coming here be put where somewhere that offers no benefit to the rest of the community when we are already so short of facilities? Of course nearby neighbours will always argue against it, but isn’t the parish council concerned for the benefit of the whole community? I hope that you can persuade other development sites to do something similar – which you failed to do so for silent garden and lowsley. I am surprised you say that the bohunt wants to put up a bigger school than the existing Liphook Junior & Infants? This is not what they said at their planning meeting . Nor is that what the junior school itself says, in fact it seems that they want to expand to over 800. I am also very surprised that you think a new much smaller school with a good road will cause more traffic than extending a much larger junior school on a minor road that already suffers terrible snarl-ups? can you give us be a little more detail on this and other traffic problems you talk about?

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Kat (26th Jul 2013 - 14:36:54) I also think Mary raised some very interesting points, especially about developers contributions. I understood, as do others, that money had been set aside over many many years for new football club facilities so there should have been a tidy sum in the pot. So where has all the football facilities money gone. Surely new facilities for the football club are really important. And what was "the very high figure" that GVI want to sell the allotment land for. I find it very difficult to believe that if the Parish Council had purchased the allotments, there would be a clause for GVI to take the allotments land back.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Jane Ives (26th Jul 2013 - 15:58:03) Mary Jeanette is very well versed in this area (more so than me!), but what I can tell you is that there isn’t ‘lots’ of money and it isn’t up to the parish council how to spend it. The money goes into a central pot held by the district council and then applications have to be made to spend it – these have to be justified and of course there will at times be different demands on the funds. In normal circumstances, GVI would have to put some money into the developer’s contributions pot if they were granted planning permission and then the district council would receive applications about how to spend it. What GVI are offering at the moment, as Jeanette says, are vague promises about what they want to ‘give’ to the community in exchange for planning permission. They have said that would give the land for allotments, a medical centre, a school and a football pitch when planning permission for the houses is granted….to me that sounds like a massive risk to the people of Liphook! Far better that we join forces to actually say what we would like to see rather than be dictated to. The biggest problem with the football club is not the lack of desire to provide a new football ground, but a lack of a place to put it. It needs to be somewhere accessible, with facilities for parking and a club house, but also somewhere where floodlights could be installed without causing a nuisance to nearby residents. The SDNP have already said that floodlights would be a problem within the National Park. To quote from the SDNP response to the pre-planning application: "the siting of the Sports Pavilion would have a significant adverse visual impact” and “the inclusion of floodlights on this site, given its sensitive location against the urban backdrop of Liphook, would result in light pollution that would have a significant adverse visual impact on the setting of the National Park design. With regards to the school Michelle Frost (head of the current primary schools) has said that we currently have 175 children coming into the village from out of catchment. Take these out of the equation and our current facilities can accommodate local Liphook children. If there is a requirement to expand because of new housing there is an option to extend the current school at a much lesser cost to the taxpayer than building a whole new school. And put a whole new school in the village and not only do you have 175 children still coming in from out of catchment, but a whole new school to fill and of course many would be coming from outlying areas. This in my mind would create traffic chaos on a much grander scale than we currently have. I don’t think anyone would disagree that Liphook needs some new community facilities but there are limited funds and we should work together to decide what we actually want – the Parish Plan is a good starting point (www.liphookplan.co.uk) If you haven’t yet seen the response from South Downs National Park to the pre-application for the school, the document can be found by clicking this link: planningpublicaccess.southdowns.gov.uk/...

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Kat (26th Jul 2013 - 19:23:16) So how much money was there in the pot and where has all the money gone that was put aside for the Liphook football facilities. Surely the Parish Council would have applied to use it, so they must know the situation, especially as Councillor Jane Ives says there isnt lots of money. Perhaps Councillor Jeanette Kirby knows and can answer the questions raised, and let us have the facts. "Floodlights would have a significant adverse visual impact on the setting of the National Park design". What on earth does that mean. I understand that they have specially designed floodlights to minimise pollution nowadays.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Jane Ives (27th Jul 2013 - 11:31:39) The Bohunt Manor Action group now has a website thanks to the very kind efforts of Alan Baker from The Dark Group (who is also responsible for this community website). Alan has very kindly created and is hosting this website for free. www.sosbohuntmanor.co.uk There is only a few bits of info on there currently but much more will be added in the coming days and I will post links here when news becomes available. There is a link on the new site to contact the action group and meeting dates will also be published there. Jane

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - dawn hoskins (27th Jul 2013 - 11:57:49) There seems to be a bit of confusion over which council is responsible for the allocation of money – taken from the developer by way of ‘developers contribution’. There are approx 50 parishes that make up East Hampshire District Council [Bramshott and Liphook being one]. I have made a list of Parishes below. EHDC collect and spend the money on our behalf. The input that Parish Councils have is limited to sending EHDC a ‘wish list’ of jobs or infrastructure improvements it would like see. The Correct term is a ‘spending bid’. So all 50 Parishes send in a list, then EHDC allocate money from the pot they have collected from any and every development that has taken place in any of their Parishes. As far as I am aware, apart from the ‘wish list’ the Parish Council have zero control over where money from developments in their own community is spent. (I am sure I will be corrected if I have made an incorrect assumption). It should be possible to obtain from EHDC a list of how much money has been spent on what. I am sure that it must be a public document?! The figures are set as a price ‘per dwelling’ this is shown on the link below. EHDC contributions If you want to understand more about Developers Contributions. A guide published by EHDC in May 2013 and I have put the link below: EHDC guide to developers A lengthier document was published by the Department for Communities & Local Government and the relevant chapter is Section 2. Link below: www.gov.uk/... The best place to get answers, is to ask the planning team at the Haskel Centre when they meet. They meet every month and are very approachable. The meetings are always open to everyone to ask questions. Parishes that will contribute to the pot of money held by EHDC when building work takes place, at the rate per dwelling specified in the first link, are: Alton Beech Bentley Bentworth Binstead Blackmoor Blendworth Bordon Bramshott Buckshorn Oak Buriton Catherington Chawton Clanfield Colemore East Meon East tisted East worldham Empshott Farringdon Finchdean Fourmarks Froxfield Golden Pot Grayshott Greatham Hawkley Headley Headley Down High Cross Holybourne Horndean Kingsley Lasham Lindford Liphoook Liss Lower Froyle Lower Wield Medstead Neatham Newton Valence NorthStreet Petersfield Priorsdean Rowlands Castle Selbourne Shalden Sheet Steep Stroud Upper Froyle Upper Weild West Tisted West Worldham Weston Whitehill

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - ellie (27th Jul 2013 - 13:48:54) As far as I am aware (and again it is the usual 2 people knocking the Parish Council) the money was not given to the Parish Council to spend on land and a new football stadium. What would be the point of buying land at an inflated price just to be refused permission for parking,lights and a stadium from the SDNP. Also think ahead to the future. It is not only purchase of land, there is an ongoing yearly cost involved with regards maintenance of the facilities. Under the powers of localism it is perfectly possible for the football club to buy the land, install what facilities they need, put in plans etc and then apply for help from the developers contribution money. There are also other sports which may require help from the Parish Council . Why on earth would the owners of Bohunt Manor sell or give land to the community if they are not going to be allowed houses? They would want to sell on in one block to a new buyer not have isolated parcels in the middle belonging to someone else? Does not make sense! Again do not believe all you read in the Herald!

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Keith Budden (27th Jul 2013 - 14:45:33) Dawn has explained S106 Developer's contributions quite well. All I would add is that it is only the Open Space contributions that parishes have a direct say in how the money is used (via the Community Forums which are held roughly every 3 months). The Environmental money is I believe kept in a central EHDC pot and the Highways money largely goes to HCC. EHDC is quite unusual amongst district councils in that it does 'ring fence' the open space money for the relevant parish so open space contributions from Liphook would not be spent in Liss etc, and vice versa. All that being said, if/when the Joint Core Strategy/Local Plan is finally adopted, it all changes again as S106 will largely cease to be and be replaced by the Community Infrastructure Levy(CIL). This will be handled differently with the money being sent directly to the Parish Council (15% of the levy if the Parish has no Neighbourhood Plan and 25% of the levy if the Parish has a Neighbourhood Plan). The other change is that at the moment S106 can only be spent on NEW capital projects, whereas CIL will also be available for the parish to spend on the running costs for leisure facilities. If you wish to know how much money is in the pot currently for any Parish you should contact EHDC who can provide this information.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Paul Robinson (27th Jul 2013 - 17:44:38) It is a matter of public record that Developer's Contributions were applied for and granted toward the renewal of both Phase One and Phase Two of the Children's Pay Areas in the War Memorial Recreation Ground. Phase One was partially destroyed by vandals setting fire to it earlier this year and is being repaired at a cost of £4,500. Phase two, which was completed just four weeks ago, has already been vandalised on several occasions with panels of the safety matting being ripped up and thrown away. Don't get me started . . .

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - mary (28th Jul 2013 - 10:06:21) Thank you Jane and Dawn answering my questions to Jeannette. It seems to me that you are saying that it goes into a central pot and the parish council can only apply for a relatively small amount for open spaces…as in Paul’s comments on some playground equipment at the Rec. I presume you also mean that the parish council actually has no money available to pay for new facilities that groups like the football and cricket club, doctors and school have said they need, as well as pay for things like new public allotments and public access to new open spaces and nature reserve close to the town centre – all things that the bohunt lot have offered to the town. Does this not make it even more important that the parish council makes sure that developers put real facilities in place in the town rather than just hand over money to the central pot and we having to apply for a small part of this pot? Going back to my earlier question to Jeanette then, will the parish council now make sure that all other developers offer the same sort of facilities as shown on the bohunt drawings? Why should this not become the standard at least that we judge all other development proposal on? As we will have to accept more growth in the town anyway whether we want it or not, why not make sure that we actually get some benefit?

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Jane Ives (28th Jul 2013 - 15:38:50) Mary In a nutshell....yes you are right, funds are limited and yes we do need to ensure that we get the community facilities we actually need and want. Please be aware though Mary that GVI, the Bohunt Manor developers, are only offering the land for facilities such as a school, allotments, football pitch/clubhouse, doctors surgery - they are NOT offering to build or fund the facilities themselves. The money for actually providing a new football pitch or clubhouse still has to be found....GVI are not giving us any of this. The land is apparently passed over at the point they get planning permission for houses....LAND only! One of the concerns we have is that they get the planning permission for the houses and then sell the land on....where does that leave us then? This is exactly why we want to make sure the community really understand what is going on here because on paper it sounds like we get lots of lovely new community facilities....all we actually have is a vague promise of some land being offered.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Digger (28th Jul 2013 - 20:18:49) Jane You appear to be saying that if the developers gets planning permission for houses, they could then go back on their word to give the land for the various facilities to the community. In reality this could not happen. This is because there is a very simple LEGAL mechanism that can be used which ties the granting of the consent, for houses in this instance, to to various obligations that bound the developer, in this case giving the land to the community, though very commonly it includes the various contributions that the developer is obliged to make and which has been discussed already by other. This legal mechanism is generally called a Section 106 Agreement, but is sometimes set up in other ways, but the point is that it is watertight i.e. the developer has to abide by his undertakings otherwise the planning permission is not valid - check with your local planning department at EHDC who could explain all this. Because a further 175 houses are going to be required to be built in Liphook - this is a certainty and is driven or decreed by central government, the community have to decide which is the best site in the village for these extra houses. Wherever these houses are located, there are sure to be pros and cons, but the Bohunt site does provide tangible assets for the community which do not appear to be available elsewhere. The other benefit is that the Bohunt site is the most centrally positioned potential site in the village, or so this has been asserted by the developer in its statement on the other thread. This is relevant in terms of traffic generation, but the site is of course in the Park. It should however of course be noted that there are other sites in the Park, such as in Petersfield, which will almost certainly obtain planning permission for housing and it is clear that new housing has to be built in the Park. In the end it is up to the community to decide which site in Liphook provides the greatest benefit for all, but that there will be more housing in Liphook is a certainty. If they decide it is to be Bohunt, then it is incumbent on the planning authority to ensure that the planning permission is irrevocably tied to the transfer of land to the community by the developer as apparently promised. This is where a legal agreement is needed to bind all parties. It will just not wash, I am afraid, to say that the developer could change its mind and not transfer the land it had promised to transfer. The school is another matter and appears to be divisive and thankfully the Park officers will not support it.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - jennyw (28th Jul 2013 - 22:23:53) Jane, Thank you -your post of 28 July explains very clearly the position re the land and until now I have not understood it. However, not everyone reads Talkback and EVERY resident should have the benefit of this explanation. I expect these matters are discussed at Council Meetings etc, but again not everyone is able to or finds it difficult to attend. I would like to come along, but do not drive and would not want to walk back home after Meetings, especially in the dark. Is there some way that EVERY resident could be informed, say by way of a Leaflet similar to the one the Developers put out, and explaining simply how things stand? I presume too that should the land pass back to the developers and they sell it on MORE housing would be built. I do understand that development must take place, but I also hear that Permission has been granted for 164 houses on the Chicken Farm in Chiltley Lane (how this could happen I cannot understand, especially when the Lane is an important sunken lane and SO narrow, with no means of widening except by Compulsory Purchase), not to mention the other 2 Proposals. Surely the infrastructure in our Village cannot sustain all this - let alone the ensuing traffic chaos - especially if a road comes through from the Longmoor Road to a roundabout at Station Road, which is narrow, already busy and has a dangerous T-junction the other end. It is a really worrying situation all round and everyone should be made aware of the current position on all the Proposals - in layman\'s terms!

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Jane Ives (29th Jul 2013 - 00:31:28) Digger, apologies my post was not entirely clear. You are right that the developer cannot change their mind about the 'community' land once permission has been granted but they could sell on the rest of the land with planning permission attached...that was my point. So what we think we would get in the way of housing may not actually be the case. We need to bear in mind that many people need to access the A3 to commute especially now Liphook is a more viable option with the tunnel open....this means a lot more traffic through our already clogged up Square. My post was really to make it absolutely clear that it is only land that the developer is handing over and not a football pitch, cricket pitch, medical centre etc etc. It is crucial that this is understood. Jenny, I agree that a clear message needs to be given to the community, hence the setting up of the action group. Your comments are sound and we do need to ensure that everyone is fully informed.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - ellie (29th Jul 2013 - 11:03:55) For those that were not at the meeting I think there is confusion. Obtaining planning permission is not legally binding it does not mean it will happen, all it means is that the land becomes more valuable. The developers are not going to give anything away (which would only be land} unless permission is given for houses. The point at which the local authority responsible which would be The SDNP and EHDC get involved to sort out the legalities is at that stage. The section 106 has in part been replaced by a community infrastructure levy. This means each house planned for has a charge on it (say £500) which goes toward community facilities. As well as this the developers would certainly be required to donate land for recreation. This is all one big PR exercise as GVI are not giving anything which would not be legally expected. They are not funding any of these things themselves. They are giving away some land which is land they do not want for housing for some reason or another. The Parish Council can only influence, it cannot dictate what happens. The people to lobby are the 3 district councillors, tell them you do not want houses there!

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Concerned (29th Jul 2013 - 11:23:25) Following Marys post re Parish Council funds, in the accounts there is over £300,000 sitting. what is this going to be used for?

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Jane Ives (29th Jul 2013 - 11:44:57) To Concerned If you have any questions regarding parish council matters they should be referred to the parish office or to the Finance & Policy Committee. No questions regarding parish council finances can be answered via this website. This thread relates to the proposed development at Bohunt Manor and any comments I or my fellow councillors make here are our own opinions and not those of the parish council. Let's not get sidetracked...this is too important!

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Mike G (29th Jul 2013 - 11:49:04) It has been clarified a few times that GVI have offered only the land for the community facilities to be built on, not the facilities themselves. Can I point out that this has not been offered free of charge. GVI have stated that they would require reimbursement of expenses incurred in obtaining relevant planning permissions for the developments. This will not be insignificant.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Digger (29th Jul 2013 - 12:36:55) Jane At the meetings in July the developer stated that the football club would secure its own funding for laying out the pitch and clubhouse, so providing GVI are legally tied to transferring the land to LUFC, which is probably the most important part of the equation as there are no other alternative sites, then there simply is no problem, as the football pitch and clubhouse can be built. In other words, providing LUFC is correct about its ability to secure the funding and, as has been made clear by the developer, there is some housing development which will enable the roads to be built to enable the football pitch and clubhouse to be accessed and built, then the football facilities will become a reality. Because it appears that an additional 175 houses have to be built somewhere in village, the Bohunt proposal, whilst being a difficult decision, could provide a solution for LUFC's requirements, but if the houses are not built at Bohunt, they will simply go elsewhere but without providing anything for LUFC, or so it seems. There does not, however, seem to be much information about the cricket pitch initiative, though presumably this could be provided on identical terms as the football pitch. It would be nice to hear from the Cricket Club perhaps. The allotments are already established, so that cost has been taken care of and are certainly visible from the Links and the footpath going up to the golf course. Two neighbours attended the open days which GVI arranged last week and were shown the allotments or community farm as it is being 'spinned' These are apparently impressive but it would be interesting to get views from other people. Looking at their statement in the other thread, GVI has said that the medical centre was agreed to be transferred free of charge to a specialist developer of doctors surgeries. This then presumably should be built once the roads are in. GVI has stated that it asked for its planning and legal costs to be reimbursed but that the land is free. Apparently this has been agreed by the specialist developer, which presumably are taking a commercial decision and it is therefore only going ahead if it is a viable prposaition for them and really is not relevant to our discussions here. I mention this because Mike G has highlighted this point. It would, however, be nice to hear what the local doctors think of this. Jane you say that you are concerned about what we get in the way of housing - I do not understand this. There is this requirement for a further 175 houses, so that is what we will have to take in the village and surely we would get whatever was consented in the first instance. If they chose to change it, the design or numbers, then this would be subject to the very rigorous Park standards, not least local scrutiny. I doubt that it would be worth it frankly as there would be an uproar. Ellie, you say that obtaining planning permission will make the land more valuable - so what. This would be exactly the same if the 175 houses were built on other sites in the village. The point is that we and the parish council should secure the maximum benefit for the village with, as others have said above, tangible assets, which cannot be taken away or the value of which diverted elsewhere by some distant or remote authority. Ellie and Jane you both seem to have difficulty with the developer selling the site on to another builder. This is also irrelevant, so long as the benefits to the community are provided as legally agreed and that the houses are built in accordance with any planning permissions from the Park. We are fortunate in that the Park authorities will ensure that the development is only permitted if it is done to the highest standard and this is plain to see in the Park authority response to the school proposal, where the Park have quite rightly objected to that proposal. One issue not discussed is time scales. There is no guarantee that building work will commence (in the current financial climate) for many years. They could take 5 years before they even start, just to keep planning happy, then not even proceed to put in any roads. So the given land for the school and the football pitch could be inaccessible for a very long time. Do not consider that the Bohunt Manor Frontage Land will be a quick fix. The cricket pitch has been lost off the radar it seems.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - A. Ryan (29th Jul 2013 - 13:08:08) Whether the land is to be given for the purpose for a football pitch etc, or paid for is neither here or there. It has been offered. Has any other developer given the offer of any land to be used. Wherever the land could be found for these facilities they would have to be paid for by someone. So where else can we find the land? As I have already stated most people would not be living in Liphook if not for all the developments over the years. Surely the Councillors posting as "themselves" should not be seen to be taking sides. What is best for Liphook? I say don't throw the bath water out with the baby and really look into the pros and cons of ALL the developments.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Jane Ives (29th Jul 2013 - 15:41:02) A Ryan and Digger, you both raise some interesting and important points. With regards to the football club, my understanding is that in order to progress up the league (? I'm not a footballer!!) the club have to provide a pitch with floodlighting. The SDNP have already said in their response to the pre-planning application for the school/football pitch (and posted further up this thread) that this floodlighting would not be acceptable in the National Park. I would also like to correct your assumption regarding the allotments. They are not being given to the Parish Council, instead the developers have offered them at a very high cost to the parish council with a clause to say they can take them back at anytime. This is why there are concerns about GVI’s motives. It is not what you might think and we do need to know exactly what we are signing up for. I am very much in support of providing new community facilities, as I think Liphook is crying out for them, but this needs to be on our terms and not the developers. The whole point of this debate is to ensure we, as a community, have our say.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - A. Ryan (29th Jul 2013 - 16:45:32) If you go on Google Earth, you will see how Liphook has slowly been creeping North, South and East. To the West, this could not be developed due to Bohunt Manor. At one time the Berg estate was part of Chiltlee Manor, planning was given the go ahead for this. As to the floodlights, Bohunt School has them for their astro turf, so depending on where the football pitch was laid it could feasibly be close to them. Liphook creates a huge amount of light pollution now so it will probably not make a vast amount of difference. It would be interesting to find out how the local shopkeepers view the development. Let's face it, planning was given for a Sainsburys, so does anyone think it will end there? Surely the Councillors should be fighting to make new developments to our advantage. Bohunt School and grounds are not in the SDNP, and hence are not affected by the use of floodlights. This map shows the area of SDNP around Liphook -

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Digger (29th Jul 2013 - 19:33:34) Jane You have made a number of very interesting points and I would be grateful if you could kindly explain these points further, both clearly and fully without any omission. The first point is the matter of floodlighting for the football pitch, which you say the club has to provide in order to progress up the league. Have you actually checked that this is the case, or is it just an assumption. Perhaps contact LUFC directly. The second point you make is that the SDNP in their response to the pre-planning application have said that floodlighting would not be acceptable in the Park. You are correct in that the Park officials have said this - I have been reading through the links provided by Talkback. However, there is one glaring flaw in all this, unless I have missed something, and that is that there is no mention of floodlighting being required for the pitch, or indeed any indication that floodlighting will be applied for in the LUFC application. It is just possible that the Park official simply assumed that floodlighting was to be part of the application. This is almost a guilty until proven innocent scenario ! I respectfully suggest that the exact position regarding the requirement of floodlighting is checked directly with LUFC before casting judgement. Will you do this please? It is just possible that there has been a misunderstanding here - worth checking on I think. The third and final point that it would be much appreciated to have absolute clarity on, is the matter of the allotments. You have stated that the developers have offered them (the allotments) to the Parish Council at a very high cost to the parish council and with a clause to say that they (the developers) can take them back at anytime. Clearly you would only make such a statement where you had direct knowledge of this matter, including, one would hope, sight of the relevant documents, and were not simply basing your assertion on hearsay. Because your understanding of this public matter is perhaps prejudicing your outlook (and therefore just possibly influencing others), it would be very helpful, not to say fair, if you could be more explicit on this matter by: 1. stating what was (exactly please, no fudging) the high cost to the parish council for the transfer of the allotments 2. provide detailed evidence, by which I mean a verbatim transcript of the clause, which you say would enable GVI to take the allotments back at any time. This seems an extraordinary clause to insert and grossly unreasonable and shameful if it is correct, though one imagines that there must be more to this clause than meets the eye. Please elucidate. If you are able to provide copy documentation, quotes would probably be fine, then surely this would clear the matter up once and for all. It would be very disappointing if you cannot provide these documents, or evidence, as surely your judgement has been wholly informed by your having sight and first hand knowledge, not hearsay, of these documents. I note that you state that there are concerns about GVI\'s motives, and this simply makes it more imperative that full disclosure of these documents is now put in the public domain. I am sure that you will not duck this issue, and reply in detail to my simple request for straight answers and evidence - unlike the behaviour of some of our more slippery public figures. If it transpires that GVI has in fact been unreasonable or even disingenuous in its dealings with the parish council then I for one would wish to know about it. Over to you Jane

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - dawn hoskins (29th Jul 2013 - 20:26:32) please do not use thread to start bashing the parish council. this is a call to start an action group - not a council group. a group to fight to have your say. if you want your say - join the group. posting on this forum is all well and good - but it won't get you anywhere (as far as fighting for what you want goes). there have been comments about neutrality - and on this one as the parish council is not the 'decision maker', it is quite acceptable for individual councillors to take a view and make a stand. you voted for us because we had views, it would be remiss if we failed to speak up when we felt it mattered surely?

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - A. Ryan (29th Jul 2013 - 20:49:53) This land is mostly agricultural, as you can see on Google Maps. It is no different to any other land that has been developed in Liphook. Why do you think the WWLF sold it off, it held no real benefit to them, only the cost in selling. The public have never really had access to this land, so it wont be missed by them and Liphook at some time or another was countryside, or farm land. We also had land that was used by the army, as in the OSU Every estate along the Haslemere Road would not exist if development had not occurred as this was a farm. Incidentally I lived right opposite the photo on this thread in the 1970\'s, when there were two garages either side of Station Road.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - ellie (30th Jul 2013 - 01:48:23) You are all forgetting that Bohunt is not PART of Liphook it is National Park Land, not within the settlement boundary of Liphook, or anywhere else and therefore the SDNP do not have to consider what is best for Liphook, only best for the Park.It is a red herring to think of it as prime building land it is not You will fall into the trap "Digger" has carefully prepared for you to read. Other Posters have also assumed we have to accept houses there because other developers do not offer the same perks. Not True. They all have to provide recreational land when permission is given for houses so GVI would not be any different. They would have to provide land anyway. They are trying to circumnavigate the usual planning procedures because the land has NOT been earmarked anywhere for housing. EHDC have never included this land as building land for Liphook. and it has to come to pass that either EHDC or the SDNP have to agree to put it into a formal local plan so far neither have. Digger and others seem to be angry at the Parish council for not endorsing the GVI application. They merely listened to what the hundreds of people said at the meeting. They and especially the District Councillors have to listen to what people want, but I do not believe blaming them for not being able to fund all sporting facilities needed is fair. I would like to have a cinema bowling alley and swimming pool in Liphook but I do not expect the Parish Council to provide it for me.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Jane Ives (30th Jul 2013 - 07:34:37) Digger I won't duck the issue and I do take your points on board. I do strongly firmly believe that any decisions we make should be based on fact and everyone is entitled to know these facts. Of course, you will have to excuse the fact that my motivation is perhaps based on the fact that I love Liphook and don't want to spoil it for future generations so my actions may sometimes be based on emotion! Anyway I will come back to you but it may take me a couple of days. Jane

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Jane Ives (30th Jul 2013 - 08:20:44) A Ryan..when I first moved to Liphook in 2001 I regularly visited the grounds of Bohunt Manor with my children. The owners permitted this and there was an honesty box for donations. Lots of people did the same and it was a beautiful place. There are also footpaths navigating the site and there is access to Weavers Down. More importantly, this is a beautiful open space where there are far reaching views and I would hate to lose that. And as Ellie says, this is now part of the South Downs National Park and we should be proud of that.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - ellie (30th Jul 2013 - 10:07:37) Dear Readers Please have a good look at GL Hearns website, in particular their STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS Team. www.glhearn.com/services/planning/... They have produced an e-booklet for their clients with headings such as Political intelligence and Relations management. In this section, it talks about how to cultivate local politicians whose own ambitions in politics will be furthered by supporting GL Hearn's developments. It talks about finding out who is leading any opposition and playing to their interests eg maximising any perceived ecological benefits (which are doubtful anyway!}. There is also a section on Media Strategy, which is obviously a reference to how closely to schmooze the local journalists for GL HEARN'S advantage - hence the hastily prepared open days at the Bohunt Farm! It was no surprise to me to see how enthusiastic the publicity was for this in the Herald. It may explain why the meeting in the Hall was so badly reported! If you read the whole brochure the only reference is gain for the developer nothing about community facilities! People are being sidetracked into thinking we should have reasons for refusing this. No - the way to look at is why should we just accept this for someone else's profit? We have accepted enough new houses in the area.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Digger (30th Jul 2013 - 15:15:40) Jane Thank you for your polite and direct response to my queries and I look forward to hearing from you on these matters in due course. Indeed I find your manner courteous and you come across very diligent - thank you. Jeanette Kirby You too asserted in your entry on this thread 26th July that GVI had asked for a consideration ( 'a very high figure' ) for the transfer of the allotments and that they 'could easily be taken back by GVI at a later date with the aim of the land used for more houses' The wording of your statement is very strong and I do think that should explain this, including providing evidence to justify making such a statement. Will you do this please? You also recently stated that a new site had been found for LUFC at Bramshott Place. Ellie I am puzzled by your assertion that I have 'carefully prepared' a 'trap' into which people will 'fall'. I certainly feel that all my entries, whilst being direct, do not convey any prejudice, but simply ask straightforward questions in order that we are properly informed. Implicit in your statement is the strong suggestion that those who may choose to engage in exchanges with me will be caught out, ie they have done or said something wrong - yet another 'guilty until proven innocent' type scenario. I am also extremely puzzled by your statement that 'Bohunt is not PART of Liphook' Having just looked up IML/Computershare, Bohunt Manor, I note that their address is shown as: Bohunt Manor, Portsmouth Road, Liphook GU30 7DL - what could be clearer. The point that sometimes strikes me, is that the parish councillors sometimes seem to be batting first and foremost for the Park, and not for Liphook (ie the interests of the people of Liphook) This is baffling though of course, but having said this, there is no reason why the interests of Liphook and the Park should not converge. So, having very carefully re-read the entries on this thread and other related threads, the salient points can, I my opinion, be distilled down as follows: Central Government has recently decreed that Liphook is to have a further minimum of 175 houses - this is the bombshell we are faced with and should be the starting point in considering the various options for Liphook in the near future. These 175 + houses therefore have to go somewhere in the village. It has been pointed out by GVI that there are 3 potential sites to accommodate these extra houses: 1. The Bohunt Manor site, called the BMFL - (GVI are of course bound to say that their site is the best because is the most centrally positioned of all three) 2. The site adjoining Lowsley Farm 3. The Chicken Farm site in Chiltley Lane. All these sites will be liable for financial 'contributions' to go towards local infrastructure and facilities if they get planning permissions for the 175 houses required. The local facilities which are currently needed include: Football pitch for LUFC A new doctors surgery Allotments BMFL has permission for all these facilities and already has allotments available. also... (a cricket pitch apparently, but the need for this facility appears to be an unkown) and there is also a need for... Additional primary school places (hopefully to be provided by Liphook Junior School) GVI has advertised its nature reserve on the BMFL, though little is known about this and this should be investigated. The other two sites, the one adjoining Lowsley Farm and the Chicken Farm site in Chiltley Lane do not currently have any planning permissions for any facilities and it is unclear whether these sites would be suitable for community facilities in any event because of their remoteness and general inaccessibility. BMFL is within the Park, though objectively speaking, is best located for village expansion as it is closest to the centre of the village. We need to tread carefully and be vigilant as BMFL seems to hold all the cards as it is the only site which actually has the land for the facilities needed in the village. Whilst BMFL may have the best land in terms of location for these facilities (including planning permissions for most of these facilities), it needs to be ascertained whether GVI would still be liable for the financial contributions mentioned by others. It has been pointed out elsewhere that there will be new housing schemes within the Park and therefore we cannot preclude housing on BMFL on the grounds that it is not permissible. Would it not be a useful and fascinating exercise if all those who are really interested and concerned about where the 175 should be located in Liphook, actually sat down and produced a 'pros and cons' schedule for each of the three potential sites in the village. If this idea is of interest and takes hold, then it would be especially nice if Talkback could host that particular thread.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - bdavies (30th Jul 2013 - 16:01:41) Digger, I thought that planning permission had already been granted for (and therefore cannot be retracted from) the chicken farm and Loseley Farm. They have already started work at the chicken farm. Or are you saying that the choice is that the extra 175 needs to be added to whatever has already been given planning permission for?

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - ellie (30th Jul 2013 - 16:03:36) Digger all these adverts for GVI are all very fine but plainly a thinly disguised marketing campaign. I think you also have the figure wrong for 175 new houses. I believe it is 175 for the areas out as far as headley and Passfield and any of the surrounding areas not 175 within the present settlement boundary of Liphook. The National Park will have its own quota of housing figures for the Park a seperate figure, it will not be 175. Petersfield is already a settlement within the Park so naturally builds within their settlement area. IML at Bohunt Manor is not within the settlement boundary of Liphook. The Wheatsheaf enclosure also has a Liphook address, but is not within our settlement boundary. It is a red herring again to keep referring to the national Park land as if it were so strategic for housing in Liphook. It is not, and as Ferris rightly points out is not going to be decided by the same people who decide things for Liphook at EHDC, and the National Park does not have to take into account what Liphook needs, The National Park does not operate that way. They are deciding it.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Digger (30th Jul 2013 - 16:26:05) Ellie Thank you for your reply. You are incorrect about the housing numbers I am afraid to say. It is a 'min' of 175 for Liphook. Take care

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Jane Ives (30th Jul 2013 - 16:50:24) Digger I have been doing some research today and can answer the first 2 questions you raised but not the later parts yet. I have only been on the parish council since November 2012 so my first-hand knowledge only goes back as far as that I’m afraid. However, there is a lot of information in the public domain and particularly on the parish council website. I have looked through the Recreation Committee minutes (I am on this committee) and these are public documents so anyone can view these. The link is here: bramshottandliphook-pc.gov.uk/meetings/recreation-committee However, rather than having to trawl through the minutes I have picked out some relevant information which answers your question as to what the football club have said they require. Meeting held February 2012 “Representations were made on behalf of the Liphook Football Club. The club was very successful but risked further progress as facilities were not up to requirements. The pitch size was too small, changing facilities not up to FA requirements and toilet facilities are inadequate. It was agreed that the pitch could be rotated although this would reduce the number of junior pitches, [which would not be] acceptable. The solution longer term was to find another site where pitch size, barriers and floodlights would not be a problem.” Meeting held May 2012 “It was noted that there was no longer a proposal to rotate the main football pitch on the Recreation Ground. Cllr Jordan stated that there were no clear plans of what the football club needed. It was agreed that the football club be asked to provide a written statement of what they are looking for in terms of pitches and facilities. This would then give substance to any future planning application. “ I appreciate that the first thing you’re going to ask is what happened next! I cannot find anything in the minutes after this point so am unclear whether this written statement was provided. I cannot speak for the parish council on this website so these are entirely my views but I would very much welcome the opportunity for the football club to join the debate. There is usually a representative from the football club at the Recreation Committee meetings and the next one is due to take place next Monday 5th August. With regards to the SDNP pre-planning application report for the school and football pitch, the comment I have noted from their report is that: “there is a concern that as LUFC seeks to move further up the football pyramid, that ground regulations would require floodlights on the site” I hope this answers your first two questions in part, and I appreciate this may not be as full an answer as you would hope for, but I will report back anything else that is useful for this particular debate.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Eneida (30th Jul 2013 - 17:12:37) Regarding the question of floodlighting for football pitches this website gives interesting information... www.thefa.com/News/my-football/facilities/...

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Darren (30th Jul 2013 - 19:56:09) How pleased I am to see someone talking a little sense in a very articulate way (Digger). I totally agree with all his (or is it her, we don't know) views. We all should look carefully at the facts, they are that Liphook will have to accept more houses over the next few years and Liphook should fight to gain as many benefits for the town as possible, and if that means developing the Bohunt Manor land then so be it. Under planning rules no one has a right to a view, be it from your back garden which will be blocked by a neighbours extension, or a view from what use to be the main London to Portsmouth trunk road (with all the thundering traffic associated with it) across to what is now called a national park. I have lived here all my life and feel the time has come to put Liphook and it's residents first and get a development that actually contributes to the town, which I feel Bohunt Manor could. Everyone should think carefully about what is best for Liphook because you can guarantee that more houses ARE going to be built. We should try to make sure there's something in it for us all this time! PS: No planning permission has yet to be applied for, let alone given permission, for the Chicken Farm on Chiltley Lane or the Lowsley Farm Land off the Headley Road. Both these sites, along with others in the town, were put forward, to EHDC, by the land owners as possible development sites in the future. There is no guarantee, either way, that an application will be submitted or approved and EHDC already have reservations about them both as suitable sites. Don't believe everything you read, do some research yourself before jumping to conclusions.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Mike G (30th Jul 2013 - 21:34:17) As far as I can ascertain, Liphook United as members of the Puma Engineering Hampshire Premier League (Senior Division) are at step 7 in the National Football League system.(step 1 is the Conference). Liphook were champions both in 2011 and 2012 thus could have transfered to the Wessex League (step 6) had the ground been of a high enough standard. The standards required at step 6 are as follows thefa.com/.... 120 Lux [180 for new sites, I believe, editor] floodlighting is, indeed, a requirement at this level so there would be little point in LUFC relocating to this location if permission for floodlights might be refused.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Hal (30th Jul 2013 - 21:39:32) Hi Digger, There seems to be some disagreement over your figure of 175 new houses that are required to be built within Liphook itself as opposed to the larger surrounding area, and whether the Silent Gardens, Lowsley Farm, the Chicken Farm and remaining Sainsburys site developments are included within this figure. Also what are the timescales for the 175 houses? I assume you have seen documentation to confirm this, as you seem quite certain of the figures, so in order to clear this up for everyone could you please provide documentation to show this? If you are able to provide copy documentation, quotes would probably be fine, then surely this would clear the matter up once and for all. It would be very disappointing if you cannot provide these documents, or evidence, as surely your judgement has been wholly informed by your having sight and first hand knowledge, not hearsay, of these documents. Many thanks

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Jane Ives (30th Jul 2013 - 22:58:54) Our District Councillor, Bill Mouland, has confirmed the following figures for housing. Bramshott & Liphook will be expected to take an extra 175 dwellings on top of permissions that have already been granted. Those with planning permission already in place are: Silent Garden (off Portsmouth Road) 127 Lowsley Farm (off Longmoor Road) 155 Land off Canada Way 20 Former OSU site 62 So that is 364 already granted, with an additional 175 expected. This will give a total of 539 new dwellings in our village. Out of this 175 Bramshott Place have applied for an additional 40 so that leaves a balance of 135 to find space for. For the record, no planning permission has been applied for at present for the chicken farm In Chiltley Lane. I hope this clears up any confusion over numbers.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Deadly (30th Jul 2013 - 23:44:55) Forgive my ignorance but my first point is with regard to the land being covered by SDNP and someone mentioned that this as \"newly designated\". When did this happen and if it was only a small time ago, is it possible that it could quickly with a change of government suddenly become NOT part of SDNP? Some points to answer posts below; 1. in regard to the football club. Ideally I as Chairman would love LUFC to have 20,000 seater stadium and to entertain Arsenal FC in the FA Cup in the next couple of seasons, but I\'m a realist and know this is not going to happen. LUFC have been looking for a new venue over 5 years now and the committee members working towards this dream haven\'t changed in all that time. However the Parish Council members during that time have promised much and delivered nothing to the point where we were told to seek help ourselves. GVI and LUFC got in touch and have been working towards a solution for a number of months which we hoped would provide us with what we require, albeit that we can only have the land for free if housing is built - whilst not ideal for us, we\'re further forward than we\'ve ever been. Our current plight is not about seeking promotion up the footballing ladder to the point where floodlights are needed (I can\'t lie that may one day be a another dream, and modern low lighting will not be noticed locally anywhere near as much as the curren Bohunt floodlights, but I don\'t want to get bogged down in this), we are in real danger of being relegated further and further down the steps because our pitch and facilities do not meet the requirements at the level we\'re currently playing at. Because we are league incumbents we get a small amount of grace, but as our league has just merged with another all places are up for grabs and clubs that fit the bill will be given priority over us. 2. The Senior side is however far from the be all and end all at LUFC as we are running teams from U6 to U17, so we have a lot of playing members and their families to cater for. The club members have worked hard to ensure all coaches are Level 1 trained, and the club is now Charter Standard recognised which opens up huge opportunities with the FA and other organisations to provide funding for facilities, so we are not relaint on handouts from the Council, and we will run the club to be as self sufficient as it can possibly be. Having a permanent home and suitable clubhouse at BMFL will allow us to provide to all our members young and old at a ground still central to Liphook village. We have also spoken to the cricket club to allow them use of our facilities as an overflow to their current ground for colts and adults, rather than them seeking their own ground from GVI. 3. I was unable to attend the public meeting but I am informed that Jane (I think), stated the council had found us an alternative site. This was not only news to us, but also to other parish councillors. If there really are other VERY viable options (remembering broken promises in the past) then we\'ll be more than pleased to investigate them further. 4. Please remember, unlike both the schools who have their distinctly different opinions on this land and how each can provide for the influx brought about by new housing on possibly this land and previously agreed other developments we are not salaried in any way - we are all volunteers just trying to provide football and community youth facilities to the village, it is all done in our free time for nothing and will continue to be so. 5. Will it just be the BMFL that is given so much airing by councillors on this website or are we goign to have regular communications on here about all subjects discussed at meetings? 6. Ellie, Really? I think it\'s scandalous how you\'re painting Digger\'s motives. I have no idea who this person is but they are asking salient questions and making some interesting points that promote discussion, surely what Talkback is for. Just because they might be at odds at times with your opinion doesn\'t mean they deserve that sort of treatment - shame on you. The editor has my email address, if people would like to email me direct about LUFC, the Bohunt Manor Land or offer us a sizeable useful place for the club to relocate in the local area, then please contact me, or come to the club at the weekends for a drink and a chat with a committee member. Yours Steve Davis Chairman - Liphook United FC

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Digger (31st Jul 2013 - 07:12:19) Jane Thank you once again for your response above and the calm and measured manner in which you deal with things. This is truly a model of exemplary conduct and professionalism from a parish councillor. I look forward to seeing your findings on the allotment issue in due course. Ellie, you are clearly passionate about the village, but with the greatest of respect, I do notice that you tend to shot first and ask questions later. We all love this village, but because change is being foisted upon us, and indeed is inevitable, it is important that we think carefully and deeply about how best to manage this change.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Jane Ives (31st Jul 2013 - 09:08:32) Steve Thank you for posting the information relating to the football club. I hope you saw my earlier posting about what the club said that they wanted in 2012. The National Park was designated in 2010 www.southdowns.gov.uk/... The biggest issue as far as I understand has always been land, and as you are well aware, there has been no land on offer for a suitable place for the football club to make a home. The rec is, I understand, not feasible as it doesn’t have the space you need? It wasn’t me that suggested an alternative piece of land at the public meeting. I am not on the Planning Committee and therefore was at the meeting just as an interested party. What I understood from the meeting was that this particular piece of land was a possibility and needed further investigation. BMFL is being discussed a lot on this site because it is such an important issue for our village. I am not acting on behalf of the parish council at all, and please remember that the parish council have no real say in planning applications – this particular one will be decided by the South Downs National Park not by the parish council. My motivation for being involved in this is that I saw the strength of opinion at the public meeting and decided to try and start an action group as there were so many people who had very strong opinions about the proposed development. The action group needs to investigate all the possibilities and options for Liphook. I also believe, very strongly, that we need to ensure that the football club gets a new ground - I know many, many people locally whose children play for LUFC so I am well aware of the issues you have. But we also need to ensure that all the other recreation needs of the village are met and many of these have been aired via the parish plan (www.liphookplan.co.uk) Steve, could you drop me an email at jives68@gmail.com as it would be very useful to have your contact details?

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - mary (31st Jul 2013 - 10:39:50) I see now that getting facilities in Liphook means more than just hoping we will get some of the money back from a pot at East Hants that all developers pay into (so-called “bribes” paid by every developer – something that ellie seems to think only applies to bohunt manor, who she accuses of “PR” – isn’t that what every planning consultation, proposal or application is anyway?) When this pot is changed in a few years time into the Community Infrastructure Levy as keith and ellie mention above, I think the situation may get worse as parishes can only spend the developers money on infrastructure - the name gives a clue – to save east hants spending their own money on roads, sewage and rubbish collection and street lights! As a community we have to come up with ways of agreeing what facilities are needed in our town and we need to make sure that every developer includes these facilities here in our town in their proposals - not just pay off east hants and we end up seeing nothing but more housing. And it worries me that the four parish councillors who started this SOS bohunt campaign here seem to have already decided they will not allow facilities that the various sports groups, doctors, public needing allotments and schools are trying to provide for Liphook. Something doesn’t seem quite right here if our councillors are supposed to work for the benefit of all the people of Liphook. Anyway I am confused why some people here are arguing about floodlights when LUFC already have planning permission for their new football field at bohunt manor and this application is simply for their clubhouse – do we expect children to wash and change in the open? Hi Mary, my understanding is that LUFC need better facilities to be able to move up the League. Another part of that requirement is the provision of flood lighting. The SDNP are unlucky to approve pitch lighting, hence LUFC will still be unable to move up, even if using a new pitch (in several years time) on the BMFL.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Jane Ives (31st Jul 2013 - 11:24:07) Mary I’m absolutely NOT against allowing facilities for whatever the community feels it needs, and I don’t believe any other contributors are either. I have children myself who have regularly used the recreation facilities, and still do, and have many, many friends in the village who are regular recreation users. I would completely support a new football ground, but I would challenge the current proposed location as to whether it is fit for purpose – if the club want to progress at some point they will need floodlighting and the SDNP are opposed to this in the National Park. What happens if the football club does get sited here, and then later hopes to progress and we are in exactly the same situation with regards to not being to progress because the grounds are not suitable for the facilities the club needs? This needs to be thought through properly and fully, and other land sought as alternatives. If someone out there is sitting on a couple of acres and feels like handing it over please speak up!! I would however like to question further some of the community facilities that GVI are suggesting. For example, the doctor’s surgeries as far as I can ascertain are not actually saying they need new premises and I don’t believe they have the funds to finance it. The allotments are another issue where yes we may need some new allotments but who can afford to pay the sums that GVI are offering them at?? They have not been offered to the parish council for free. Be careful with thinking that the developer is offering these facilities, they are not, they are only offering the land in its raw state for others to fund any development. They are simply applying for planning permission for the facilities.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Deadly (31st Jul 2013 - 11:30:08) Dear Editor, As I mentioned earlier, the ability to move up leagues and then maybe needing floodlights (although the rules change continuously) is not of paramount importance it was only cited in our report a while ago as reasons why we couldn't move. Our current plight is that our pitch and clubhouse facilities etc aren't good enough for the level we're currently playing at, plus we also have a rather unsightly metal barrier around the pitch on the public recreation ground which is not ideal. Permission for a pitch has already been granted as a previous poster has stated, it's just the permission to build a clubhouse plus having access etc, and be given the land. May I also take this opportunity to give our thanks to the community for their support of the club and our want to find a new home, even those who aren't fans of football have been very sympathetic to our plight. We are currently (via this GVI process) very dependent on a number of factors working in our favour in order for us to progress - however in the absence of other offers, we are obviously hoping things will work out for us and so unsurprisingly we are channelling our energies into this application. I'm glad there are open and frank discussions going on about it, so it doesn't lose any traction as has happened in the past.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Bdavies (31st Jul 2013 - 11:40:09) Jane, what about the Chicken farm off the Midhurst road - I understand that building work has already started there or is that not the case? Off Chiltley Lane. Access was actually provided for off Willow Gardens, so in theory they should not have to have an access road onto the lane.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Jane Ives (31st Jul 2013 - 12:10:46) Bdavies, I'm not on the Planning Committee, but my understanding is no planning permission has been applied for at the chicken farm. Check with EHDC if you're not sure but I couldn't see anything on their website. planningpublicaccess.easthants.gov.uk/online-applications Postcode should be GU30 7HJ

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Steve Miller (31st Jul 2013 - 12:27:42) Surely the floodlight issue is a complete red herring. There will be no football pitch or changing facilities unless planning permission is granted for the housing development. In those circumstances, if and when the football club were to apply for planning consent for floodlights, planning would be determined on the merits of the case at that time and would probably have a good chance of being granted given that the housing would already be in place within the National Park boundary and the sites proximity to the existing floodlit facility at Bohunt. Even if the National Park Authority maintained their current position and rejected that application, that decision would most likely be overturned on appeal.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - ellie (31st Jul 2013 - 12:40:33) Thank you for clarifying figures Jane but it still leaves the issue of housing numbers for the Park? It will confuse people if they do not realise that the Bohunt Land maybe will not have to be considered for these figures and does not have to be included in land by EHDC as they [SDNP] have their own separate quota to fill? Perhaps Cllr Mouland could look into the area to be covered needing 175 houses? Liphook and Bramshott is a bit vague? is that within the present settlement boundary? There are parts of Liphook considered Liphook by postcode which are in West Sussex? And Digger I always take care especially when crossing the road !

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - A. Ryan (31st Jul 2013 - 13:47:44) Ellie , this was on another thread written by Ferris Cowper Over 600 homes are approved for building or are being built at the moment and HCC calculate that assuming a normal level of family occupancy, primary school capacity in Liphook will be exceeded significantly. Also stated on this thread : Our District Councillor, Bill Mouland, has confirmed the following figures for housing. Bramshott & Liphook will be expected to take an extra 175 dwellings on top of permissions that have already been granted. Those with planning permission already in place are: Silent Garden (off Portsmouth Road) 127 Lowsley Farm (off Longmoor Road) 155 Land off Canada Way 20 Former OSU site 62 So that is 364 already granted, with an additional 175 expected. This will give a total of 539 new dwellings in our village. Out of this 175 Bramshott Place have applied for an additional 40 so that leaves a balance of 135 to find space for. There is a slight discrepancy between the two figures but I think we can catch the drift, a lot of building is to be done. The chicken farm I noted this morning was closed, which would mean the chickens have gone. A couple of days ago there were a few cars there, possible viewing of the land ? Certainly out of the ordinary. With tree clearing and noises to wake the devil last week something is happening.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Digger (31st Jul 2013 - 14:13:02) Jane Your last entry worries me as once again you refer to the high price that GVI sought from the parish council for their allotments without providing evidence that this was actually the case. You have promised to investigate and report back exactly what the 'high price' was that GVI asked for the allotments (from the parish council) and I wonder whether it would not be more prudent to fully investigate that matter first before asserting for the second time that the allotments were to be transferred to the parish council at a high price or high cost. You also agreed to disclose or explain the clause which GVI apparently inserted which would then enable GVI to take back the allotments at some later date. This last point in particular is extremely important for all of us to know, as if a clause had really been included to simply allow GVI to take the allotments back (without good reason, I suppose ?) then we should all know about it. One final point please: Could you please advise where or how or from whom did you get your facts regarding the allotments in the first place ? By this I mean: 1. where did you hear/see/learn that the allotments were offered at an (unacceptably) high cost 2. likewise the the clause re GVI taking the allotments back

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Digger (31st Jul 2013 - 14:15:46) Ellie It is a 'minimum' of 175 houses, but not restricted to the Settlement Boundary. Glad to hear that you take care crossing the road. All the best

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Jane Ives (31st Jul 2013 - 16:06:40) Digger...I haven't forgotten :-)

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Peter Richardson (2nd Aug 2013 - 11:50:57) I have just read very carefully the posting from GVI regarding Tree Matters at Bohunt Manor. It was interesting and informative. If we are ever going to succeed in preventing development on Bohunt Manor land we must be able to present good planning reasons as to why it should not go ahead,not emotional irrelevances that do not carry any weight. Jane Ives referred in two of her postings that GVI want a high price for the allotments and that there is a "claw back" clause. She has been asked more than once to name the figure which cannot be too difficult particularly as I feel she should have known and published this when she made the original statement and produce evidence that there is a "claw back" clause. I appreciate that this is a small part of the whole scenario, but if it appears that the opposition make statements that cannot be substantiated then this weakens their case against the development. I, up until now, have been against any development on this land, but because I want to know more about it, I went to both the public meeting and the open day hosted by GVI. I had a long talk with GVI's representative and he was courteous, informative and answered my questions. With regard to the allotments there was no reference to money changing hands only a statement that the parish council did not want them and now would not talk to GVI at all about anything. If this battle is to be won, let us deal in facts, know what the other side is proposing and then make up our minds - and please Jane Ives, on this one point, let us know what is the high price GVI want for the allotments and is there a"claw back" clause. If you cannot be open and accurate on relatively small issues, how can anyone trust you to be open and accurate on the larger ones. I will conclude by say that I am not "getting at" anyone only interested in "getting to" the facts. As we can see that GVI are reading this TalkBack it would also be possible for them to reply with what the exact figure they were requesting for the allotments and if any clause existed regarding clawback. That would be a definitive answer then.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Jane Ives (2nd Aug 2013 - 13:43:52) Digger asked me a question a few days regarding the allotments when I had asserted that they were offered to the parish council at a high price. I agreed to look into this further which I have done. However, there are a couple of things I need to make clear. Anything I say here is not said as a representative of the parish council, as our standing orders state that only the parish clerk is able to make official statements from the council. This is me, on behalf of the Bohunt Manor Action Group, seeking to establish information from people who may know. I have sought to establish the details of the proposal that was put forward by the developers at the point they wished to 'sell' the allotments to the parish council. This was proposed a few years ago to the old parish council (it pre-dates the current council) and it was rejected by them. I have gleaned this information from people I have spoken to, people I trust, so you are going to have to trust that what I say I believe to be true. The proposal was rejected firstly because of cost. The allotments were offered at a cost but the parish council would have been responsible for putting in fencing and making the area suitable for renting as allotments. They would also have been responsible for all legal costs relating to the agreement. All of this together would probably have equated to around £50k of expenditure. If the allotments had not been maintained to the satisfaction of the developers they could have been taken back at any time, and the landowner had the ability to alter the relationship at a later date if they saw fit. Secondly, there was a 'right of way' passing through the allotment site and the parish council were nervous about this being turned into an access route/road for potential development at a later date. Thirdly, the suggested car park for the allotments was some distance away, and there were concerns about tenants of the plots having issue with this when they wanted to off-load gardening stuff. Lastly, the parish council were told that in order to ‘buy’ this land they had to agree not to object to any future housing development on Bohunt Manor land. Digger this may not be as full an answer as you were requesting and I hope you can appreciate that this is the best answer I can give. I have reached the limits of my investigation! For whatever reason you are choosing to post under a pseudonym so I don't know who you are, but you are asking some searching and relevant questions. I have chosen not to use a pseudonym which would be very easy to do, so please don't knock me for trying to provide honest answers.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Peter Richardson (3rd Aug 2013 - 12:31:03) In answer to your latest post, Jane I would like to make the following points. 1. No one as far as I can see has suggested that you are speaking as a representative for the parish council. 2. The fact that you give your full name and Digger uses a pseudonym which could be his nickname, is irrelevant. If you go back through various Threads, usually the contentious ones, the only time that people who use first names or pseudonyms are criticised is when they are producing intelligent and well thought out challenges and the criticisms invariably emanate from parish councillors. If you are so concerned about people not using full names then please do not be partial in your criticism because this applies to 75% or possibly more of Thread users. 3. You brought up the question of money in relation to the allotments and it would have been wise to be sure of your facts first, as you now seem to be saying that to what you were referring happened some time ago with the previous parish council. This may not apply now and from what I learned from the GVI representative I talked to at the Open Day, does not apply today. I was shown the allotments and there was no right of way through them, but 400 apple trees had been planted near the allotments and they looked fantastic. A wonderful setting with some comprehensive and attractive fencing. There was no question of money changing hands and GVI's representative said that the parish council had told them they (the parish council) did not want the allotments and now would not speak to them (GVI) about this or anything else. The "claw back" clause was not mentioned. 4. It is not wise to post information anywhere without having seen the evidence, even if it is from a trusted source. Information gleaned even from a trusted source can be innocently disorted in the re-telling or genuinely misremembered, particularly if it is about something which happened years ago, then people lose faith and trust and eventually become sceptical and disillushioned.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Jane Ives (4th Aug 2013 - 09:53:29) Peter I am stuck between a rock and a hard place here! There is clearly an assumption that I am 'in the know' due to me being a parish councillor and therefore questions are asked of me that wouldn't have been asked if I had used a pseudonym. It is doubtful that Digger would have asked for documentary evidence if I had posted as Flossy or something!  I am concerned that people use pseudonyms on this site and parish councillors have fallen foul of such people in the past. For instance, who is to say that any one of these people could be a reporter from The Herald, or a representative of GVI, or a district or county councillor? I am happy to answer questions but I only feel it right that there should be a level playing field and honesty should be expected of all parties in a discussion, and not just from me!  Peter, the offer was made to the previous parish council and some of those councillors are on the current parish council. Nothing applies now as the offer was made and rejected by the PC. A counter offer has not been made by GVI and it is ludicrous to suggest that the PC won't speak to GVI! If they had come up with a decent offering that would have benefitted the people of Liphook of course the PC would speak to them! It sounds to me like the representative from GVI you spoke to was a little conservative with the truth. If you had asked him if the allotments had ever been offered to the village for free  I wonder what the response would have been? If you had asked whether by agreeing to the allotments the parish council would have been allowed to object to any housing developments I wonder what the response would have been? How would most people in Liphook feel right now if they were told that the parish council could happily provide a few allotments for a small minority to use, but the price to pay was that their hands were tied and they had to keep quiet about a new housing development? We certainly wouldn't have had the public meeting in July when so many residents turned up to voice their dismay at the planned development. I would like to highlight the 4th point you raise about the re-telling of information I have gleaned from trusted sources and then think about the fact that you have done exactly this with regards to your re-telling of your discussion with a representative from GVI. The difference in the two scenarios is that I know and have spent considerable amounts of time with the people I have gleaned this information from and therefore there is trust in what they say; could you say the same about the GVI representative you met in a field over a weekend?  You can criticise me all you like Peter, but just remember that I want the best for Liphook because I love the place. I want the best for the people that live here including future generations. I am yet to be convinced that GVI's offering is the best we can get.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Digger (4th Aug 2013 - 14:28:54) Jane Thank you for your replies on 2nd August and 4th August. You certainly are to be commended for your diligence in responding to queries from your electorate and the respectful manner in which you reply. There can also be no doubt that your motives are rooted in the highest principles and your love of the village. All this is appreciated and I applaud you - thank you. I am afraid though that you have not got to the truth of this matter and that you are incorrect once again in your assertion regarding the 'price' that the parish council was asked to pay for the allotments and the conditions attached to the transfer of the allotments to the parish council. It is clear that the source of your information is from trustworthy colleagues or contacts, ie your assertions are based on hearsay. I do not question the trustworthiness of this person or persons, and because it is hearsay, it does not mean that the contact has deliberately misled you, but that there is the distinct possibility that he or she may have lost sight of the core facts - easily done and we are all prone to this failing. By another name it would be called Chinese Whispers. So, I understand then that this is hearsay, not a matter of having seen original documentation which would unequivocally state the facts. I am sure that you have an infinite number of other more important matters to attend to and therefore do not expect you to do anything further here, as I guess we have all made our points. However, with the greatest sincerity and respect to you (and your contacts), I repeat that your version of events is incorrect. Digger, please enlighten us with truth that you appear to know, but seem not to want to share. Lots of rhetoric but no facts.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Digger (4th Aug 2013 - 15:45:26) Dear Editor Thank you for your note. The assertions regarding this subject were made by Jane in the first instance and, with the greatest of respect to Jane, these now appear to have been based on hearsay and not solid evidence. Therefore, do you not agree that it is perhaps incumbent on Jane to explain herself and provide proof of evidence ? I have noted that Jeannette Kirby also made assertions regarding the 'high cost' of the allotments etc. I asked her to please explain this further, but you will see that she has chosen not to reply. Hopefully, Jeanette has some solid evidence lined up to present. I think that unless someone else has something else to add, this thread has probably run its course. Of course it is acknowledged that all of us have the best interests of Liphook at heart, but we do seem to live in an age of mistrust and cynicism, all undoubtedly rooted in unfounded fears. ....shame really, us humans have such potential. Many thanks I just thought you might want to explain your comment - "I am afraid though that you have not got to the truth of this matter and that you are incorrect once again in your assertion regarding the 'price' that the parish council was asked to pay for the allotments and the conditions attached to the transfer of the allotments to the parish council." - which clearly suggested that you knew the truth. Obviously you don't, but thanks for joining the discussion.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Jane Ives (5th Aug 2013 - 09:06:18) Just two points to make:  I have already said that as a parish councillor I am not permitted to release official information on a public website, only the parish clerk can do that. Therefore I cannot give documentary evidence via this thread.  Secondly, let's be really clear about one thing. The parish council needs land for allotments, there is a waiting list of people. Therefore if land had been offered for free the parish council would have jumped at the chance. When the offering was made over 2 years ago the allotments were in no fit state to use and needed much work including proper fencing. There is no way the parish council can afford or justify high costs in providing a facility that only a small minority of people could benefit from. No offer has been made since the original one.  Digger you imply that you know more but are not willing to say more. I don't believe there is anything more to know as what I have presented here is indeed correct.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Kat (5th Aug 2013 - 12:08:47) Jane I am sorry but I am not persuaded by your latest post. What people want to know is what the very high figure was that GVI wanted to sell the allotments for and the claw back clause. This does not seem to be a difficult question to answer. You and your councillor colleagues involved in this group could ask the parish clerk to give you the official information, or you could ask him to publish it on the council website. What's stopping you. The facts would then be established, evidenced, and we would have the "officially" correct version. As an aside, I can find nothing in your Standing Orders on the parish council website that says the clerk is the only person permitted to release official information. Please correct me if I am wrong. This is certainly not reflected in the many posts made by parish councillors on this website. I'm searching the BLPC website for the information. In Feb 2013 minutes I have found "Cllr Jordan disputed the ‘community’ terminology; he claimed that it was misleading as the community were not involved. He added that the Parish Council had found the terms of the original agreement onerous." I'm still looking... "Exempt Session Agenda – 31 January 2011 Bohunt Manor-Proposed Transfer of Land for Allotments (EXEMPT / CONFIDENTIAL). The Motion: “Due to time constraint it was agreed that this matter would be dealt with in an exemption meeting as soon as possible”." Extraordinary Agenda - 7th Feb 2011 "BOHUNT MANOR – PROPOSED TRANSFER OF LAND FOR ALLOTMENTS To transact the business set out at Item 5 of the Exempt Session Agenda of the Parish Council Meeting of 31 January 2011, as previously circulated to all councillors." Minutes Dec 2011 "Cllr Croucher advised that approaches had been made to Parish Council allotment plotholders & that the Bohunt Manor site was to be private allotments for parishioners. The owners had planning permission, so there was no requirement for them to involve the Parish Council."

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - ellie (5th Aug 2013 - 12:47:07) Yet again Kat is on a fishing expedition. I bear in mind GL Hearn's website and how their clients reap the benefits of "Cultivating the local Media". It is easy journalism, either to prepare more propaganda for GL Hearn or to have a pop in the papers -- Parish council refuse magnificent allotment offer.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Jane Ives (5th Aug 2013 - 13:11:28) Thank you to the ever growing number of people who have contacted me via this thread to take part in the Bohunt Manor Action Group. Unfortunately this thread has now been hijacked and taken off the subject by comments regarding the allotments. I have endeavoured to answer these questions as best as I can and have said as much as I am willing to say. You can choose whether to believe me or not. I am more than happy to meet with anyone who would like to discuss this matter.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Kat (5th Aug 2013 - 14:17:19) Editor Thank you. Two councillors, Councillor Croucher and Councillor Jordan are in the know. Perhaps that's where Jane Ives got her information from. Ellie No, I am trying to find out the truth, the facts, because it is in all our interests to know what happened. I want to make up my own mind about the proposals and what I think is good for Liphook based on evidence not hearsay. Jane For me, the fact that you are not willing to say any more says it all. With the greatest of respect, you have not convinced me that what you say is correct. Kat, is strange that Digger won't say what he knows either !

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - KB (5th Aug 2013 - 15:04:56) Just to add fuel to the fire I head a rumour ages ago that when the "Community" allotments were to be offered they were to be rented out at the cost of £90 per year, significantly higher than any council charges for renting a council owned allotment. This would probably make it cost restrictive for most local people so guess what, no demand for allotments and the developers can then change it to more housing. Digger I am sure you will prove me wrong if this is not the case! As I said just a rumour from months and months ago and can't remember where I heard it. It did sound plausible at the time so who knows, perhaps the developer will have the courtesy to tell us the CURRENT and CORRECT facts but I won't hold my breath. It was discussed in this thread from January 2012 - Village Plan and Bohunt

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - bdavies (5th Aug 2013 - 15:39:21) GVI know the offer that was made and the circumstances behind it. As we have established that GVI are actively posting on liphook.co.uk we should perhaps leave the job of advising us all about it to them. Or call GL Hearn on 0844 225 0003. GVI do not have a phone number that I can see.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Peter Richardson (5th Aug 2013 - 17:31:01) I agree this Thread is veering from its course, but this is because as so often happens, a statement is made in a post, in this case Jane Ives' statement that the parish council was asked by GVI to pay a "high price" for the allotments and that there was a "claw back" clause, that cannot be verified. When she was asked the very reasonable question as to what the high price was, she couldn't come up with an answer. Lesson 1 don't make statements you cannot substantiate. That was the first mistake. The seccond mistake is for her to assert that she is speaking for herself and not the parish council (nobody was asserting this by the way) in one post and then in a later post to say and I quote "I have already said that as a parish councillor I am not permitted to release official information on a public website, only the parish clerk can do that. Therefore I cannot give documentary evidence via this thread. " Jane, you cannot have it both ways, either you are speaking as a parish councillor or you are not. If you are speaking for yourself as you originally said you were and stated that GVI want a high price for the allotments, you must be able to back this up with a figure otherwise it means nothing and this battle will never be won if statements/assertions are made that cannot be substantiated. However I agree that this is getting away from the subject of thisThread and hope something has been learnt from the mistakes therein.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Jane Ives (5th Aug 2013 - 18:23:04) Would anyone like to ask Digger to substantiate his claims or is just me that needs to do so?

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Eneida Nelson (5th Aug 2013 - 19:14:32) Yes Jane, I would also like 'Digger' to substantiate his claim that he knows the true story about the allotments...at the moment he simply sounds like someone trying to cause trouble. And, as someone who claims to care about the future of Liphook, and whether he is for or against the development of Bohunt land, why can't he give us his full name too?? This matter is just too serious to play silly beggars...

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Peter Richardson (5th Aug 2013 - 20:26:38) I have read and re-read the postings by Digger and I cannot see anywhere that he claims to "know the true story about the allotments." All he has posted in connection with the allotments is the question namely "what is the high price that GVI want for them?" (referred on more than one occasion by Jane Ives) and some documentary evidence of the "claw back" clause. I too would like an answer.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Digger Barnes (5th Aug 2013 - 20:42:56) Dear Eneida I am truly sorry if I have unsettled you or any others for that matter. I agree that this matter is too serious to play 'silly beggars' I was simply trying to get to the truth of the matter. Putting my legal hat, do you not think that as Jane and Jeanette (the Claimants) made various assertions about GVI (the Accused), the Burden of Proof is on them Unequivocal proof that is, one which a court would uphold. However I do not wish to give these two a hard time, especially Jane, but I am not the one who first went into print with accusations which I cannot substantiate. I am also just a bit concerned that Jane and Jeanette are parish councillors, and wonder on what basis exactly they make important decisions on behalf of the community. I certainly do not wish to deride either of these two individuals in any way whatsoever, as they do afterall work on a voluntary basis for us in regards to their work as parish councillors - this cannot always be easy and may well be a thankless task for most of the time.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - LHagman (6th Aug 2013 - 08:44:38) You needn't concern yourself Digger, you haven't unsettled anyone; other than perhaps spreading more mirth and amusement than we would normally see in a day. Keep posting - it's fun!

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Eneida (6th Aug 2013 - 09:18:37) LOL this thread is turning into a real life soap opera...what with Digger Barnes and now L Hagman...who's going to play Sue Ellen??

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - ellie (6th Aug 2013 - 18:15:46) Perhaps the Texas oilmen getting involved would be less intrusive or invasive in the National Park than the proposed building work (but less commissions for the local estate agents! )

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - A. Ryan (6th Aug 2013 - 19:42:20) Fracking verses development, which would you prefer? Houses and roads can be knocked down and taken up and let to go back wild, as in the case of tho old A3 through Hindhead. Fracking on the other hand, once the damage done to subterranean structures has occurred, nothing can put that right.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Paul Robinson (6th Aug 2013 - 20:19:45) Reference other developers offering benefits to the village. If you visit the Parish Council office and ask to see the plans you will see that the developers of Lowsley Farm, which has planning approval, have devoted space to open parkland and an area for allotments. You will also see that G L Hearn put forward an substantial objection to this planning application. I wonder why? Paul Robinson

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - LHagman (6th Aug 2013 - 22:33:06) Miss Ellie, I'm on your side! Old Digger is just a daft old developer with a penchant for pedantic twaddle. He knows he is out of his depth and is backing a loser. Don't you Digger, old chap.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - mary (7th Aug 2013 - 08:59:05) Dear Paul, even though voted against by the parish council, you are now unbelievably blowing a trumpet for Lowsley, so can you please tell us if you will also support the proposals now being talked about for another 400 houses there? I really don’t think your pet developers are offering much at all to those of us who live in this area other than congestion, noise overcrowding and misery…perhaps you will now move here to show your solidarity? I’d rather see Bohunt happen than suffer yet more sprawl our way.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - bdavies (7th Aug 2013 - 10:08:09) You could set up an action group to prevent more development at Lowsley Farm. 155 houses have been given the go ahead but not the extended amount; maybe not many people knew about the 400 extra. As has been said before, Bohunt is part of the SDNP and outside of the settlement boundary which is why there is such vehemence against it, that and the fact that we already have a lot of new houses in the pipeline with planning permission.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - A. Ryan (7th Aug 2013 - 10:33:35) Now we are getting to the heart of the matter. All these proposals for housing developments. Who has got interests in any of these developments and have they remarked on this thread I have wondered at the animosity toward the Bohunt development. What about the Lowsley proposal ? If anything the Bohunt development would make more sense, at least it would keep traffic away from the village center. As to some of the Councillors trying to prevent the development, can they say which areas they would be happy with? Liphook has been growing for years, it wont stop now, we have to accept that. All developers are out to make a huge profit , we are all aware of that, but if we can grab a little for ourselves surely that would be the prudent thing to do. Not sure I understand why you say that the Bohunt Manor offering would keep traffic away from the village. It would be quite the opposite - most traffic leaving any new estate on the BMFL would be heading for the A3 via the Square, or would be local parents delivering and collecting children from the proposed school, again via the Square. On the other hand the Lowsley Farm estate would access the A3 at Griggs Green so would not be entering via the village.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - liz (7th Aug 2013 - 11:21:09) Fristly, I agree with the editor's comment on traffic. Secondly, I am not a supporter of the Bohunt development as Bohunt is, effectively, on our gateway to the South Downs National Park and has been recognised of being of sufficent landscape quality to be included. Shame it we trash it - particularly if there is land available elsewhere, which there is. For the record (as this now seems to be an issue) I don't live near any of the proposed developments.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - ellie (7th Aug 2013 - 11:28:06) Because the Bohunt Land is outside of the settlement boundary it is not considered by the authorities to be suitable for the same housing designation as land such as Lowsley Farm which was on the EHDC list for housing consideration as a reserve site for many years. All developers would be expected to hand over the CIL infrastructure levy and designated open space land either on the same development or close by, Bohunt are not offering anything they would not be told to provide anyway. The campaign for local support is to create a supposed demand for what they are offering, so that the houses are allowed as well.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - A. Ryan (7th Aug 2013 - 12:23:36) Editor. Isn't that being presumptuous that everyone will be heading towards the A3 ? And yes I do agree that a large part of the Bohunt land should not be touched, but I hardly see that the area marked out for development is "special" We do have a lot of agricultural around the village, which I am sure in years to come some will be marked for development. I find it odd that it is outside the settlement boundary,as directly opposite we have Newtown, would that not be a natural extension to it? As for a development in Lowsley , it is further out of Liphook, so most people will be driving in causing more traffic( unless of course these people will only be heading for the A3 too) I also think it is not great housing if it is virtually alongside the A3, with pollution, and no amount of screening will stop the incessant drone from traffic. It is just as presumptuous as you thinking that all BMFL traffic would only be heading to Petersfield down the old A3 or done Station Rd (still part of the village) - seems very unlikely to me.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - A. Ryan (7th Aug 2013 - 13:09:28) Editor. Having looked at my posting I can not find anywhere where I had assumed traffic would be travelling in any direction, on;y to say I quote :- If anything the Bohunt development would make more sense, at least it would keep traffic away from the village center. Would not people shop in Newtown, or head to Sainsburys from the direction of Station Road, or walk to catch the train. Seems ideal on so many fronts. I am sure the retailers down that neck of the woods be happy. We are assuming that any new householder would be travelling up North on the A3 to work in their car. I think the majority of Liphook centre traffic is caused by commuting and school runs, not shopping trips. So I think your assumptions are wrong, apart from those households who have jobs down the old A3 the rest of the car based commuters will go through the Square for both North & South bound access to the A3.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Mike G (7th Aug 2013 - 14:26:15) I'm surprised more has not been said about the proposed sewerage solution for this development. Are "Reed Bed" systems suitable for a large housing development? What are the chances of untreated effluent getting into natural water courses after a heavy storm? How well does the system cope in a particularly severe winter? Who would own the facility (and thus be liable for the potentially large fine levied by the Environment Agency if the system failed)? Apparently the Enviroment Agency inspect outflows from these systems every 3 weeks, who pays for this? What about storm drainage? Reed systems would not be suitable because of the large sudden inflows.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - A. Ryan (7th Aug 2013 - 15:27:55) Maybe then there is an argument for the new school to be built? as surely a development at Lowsley would bring all traffic up through the Longmoor Road, which is bringing more traffic to the center. More chaos. One can not assume all cars will need to travel on the A3, but yes some will. I am sure the businesses in Station Road would benefit, but who will benefit from the Lowsley development?

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - liz (7th Aug 2013 - 16:49:59) The whole of Liphook would benefit from the retention of Liphook's bit of the SDNP. I can't see the Bohunt development having much direct impact on the Station Road businesses. If anything people who now stop there for the doctor's surgery will be parking further away.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - A. Ryan (7th Aug 2013 - 20:04:21) Liz, If this is all you can come up with then I fear you have lost the argument.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - Russ Ellis (7th Aug 2013 - 23:34:41) What I cannot understand is that if a piece of land is ear marked for development why is that not used first before looking at other areas. I have lived in Liphook all my life and for as long as I can remember we have all know that the fields on Lowsley were going to be built on. Having read some of this debate I wonder if you actually know how big this piece of land is. It reaches from the bend on Longmoor road to the Headley Road and on the inside of the A3 bypass. When they built the first stage which is The new part of The Avenue, Yeomens Drive, Hurst Close and Lark Rise the contractors left access to the fields behind for the next stage. Hence if you look the roads just ends. The Headley Road entrance known as Pope’s Field, would make an ideal place for a football pitch and if a road was put in between both the Headley Road and Longmoor Road it could be accessed by all routes. Also this road would make an access for any new developments and of course it would reduce traffic entering the square to access the A3 . As for saying it is along way out of the village I think people who live here would disagree. The 3 schools are within easy walking distance so no cars have to be used. From this side we do not have to go across the square to get to the A3 and from there you can get to all the towns Portsmouth Petersfield, Bordon, Farnham, Basingstoke, Haslemere, Guildford and of course London. These places are where the majority of traffic wants to get to especially as this is where are hospitals are. We also have the post office and a very good Co-op this side and a very easy walk to the square. The only time we need to cross is to get to the Station, Station shops, Doctors and of course Sainsbury’s.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - D Advocate (8th Aug 2013 - 01:07:26) Mike G. You have raised a matter as yet not mentioned here, Do you think GVI have already worked out the answers but forgot to ,mention their solutions? Or do you think Green Village Investments may have missed something of quite serious import?

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - bdavies (8th Aug 2013 - 06:49:20) The thing is we are going to get Loseley whether the community believes it be practical or not. It's a done deal and whether or not Bohunt is also successful the 155 new houses at Lowsley will also be built. Question is, do we really want or need both? The individuals behind building schemes will always try to maximise the investment - look at what happened at the old hospital site where they applied for and were granted planning permission for more houses. The 400 extra mentioned for Lowsley is news to me and just as worthy of a fight to prevent as the Bohunt application. Maybe the "Call to Action" should be more general and less Bohunt focused so that A Ryan, Mary, Valerie and others can voice their opinions. None of us want to see Liphook swamped with housing but this thread cites Bohunt as the focal point for dissent NOT Lowsley Farm which unfortunately we have already lost, in part. When GL Hearn formally complained against the Lowsley scheme the interests of Liphook (and of individuals posting here) were not in mind when they dissented. They and GVI have a fnancial investment agenda which is ultimately more important to them than the community they will permanently impact.

Re: **CALL TO ACTION - BOHUNT MANOR ESTATE** - liz (8th Aug 2013 - 08:39:50) A. Ryan If you cannot see yourself the fundamental value in retaining the piece of SDNP adjacent to Liphook then you will never be convinced.

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home