Agenda and minutes

Community Forum (Whitehill & Bordon, Liphook, Headley, Grayshott, Lindford & Greatham)
Tuesday, 15th April, 2014 6.30 pm

Venue: Liphook Millennium Centre, 2 Ontario Way, Liphook, GU30 7LD

Contact: Cynthia Haveron  Democratic Services Officer - 01730 234092

Items
No. Item

24.

Apologies for Absence

To receive and record apologies for absence.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr R Millard.

25.

Confirmation of Minutes

Please note that it is helpful if Councillors could give advance notice, to Democratic Services, of any questions they wish to raise in respect of the Minutes.

 

Minutes of the last meeting held on 21 January 2014 previously circulated.

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 21 January 2014 were confirmed and signed, with the following amendment: (added text in italics, deleted text struck through)

 

Page 3, paragraph 6 - ... The five local Councillors and the ward councillor for Lindford had rallied around…..

26.

Chairman's Announcements

Minutes:

There were no Chairman’s Announcements.

27.

Declarations of Interest

To receive and record any declarations of interest from members present in respect of any of the various matters on the agenda for this meeting.

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest.

28.

Public Question Time

Members of the Public are invited to ask questions on general matters affecting the local community.

 

If your question is not answered at the meeting then the Democratic Services Team will try to answer your question within 10 working days of the meeting. The answer will be included in the next agenda.

Minutes:

There were no public questions.

29.

The Joint Core Strategy and Housing Development in Your Area pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Officers from East Hampshire District Council will give a presentation and take questions on the Joint Core Strategy and future development/housing in your area.

 

For Discussion/Information

 

Minutes:

The Forum received a presentation from Chris Murray, Service Manager Planning Development.  A copy of the presentation is attached to these minutes as Appendix 1. Steve Pearce, Director Whitehill Bordon Project, Ian Godfrey, Principal Policy Planner and David Townsend, Link Officer, South Downs National Park Authority were also present to answer questions.

 

Residents in attendance asked a number of questions, focussed around infrastructure issues in Liphook.  The infrastructure was felt to be inadequate at present, with roads at peak times highlighted as a particular concern.  It was felt that this would only get worse with further development and it was predicted that the redevelopment of Whitehill and Bordon would add to the congestion, as the nearest railway station would be in Liphook.

 

The problem was suggested to be bigger than any single development and it was felt that the entire infrastructure needs of the village should be assessed to arrive at a sustainable solution.

 

In reply, Mr Murray recognised these concerns and explained that they were shared by many communities throughout the district.  Infrastructure providers were statutory consultees in the planning process and this included Hampshire County Council for highways.  However, with the National Planning Policy Framework, the Government had stated that the highways authority could only object to an application if it would have a severe affect. 

 

He felt it important to note that for any new development, the developer was only obliged to address the predicted infrastructure effects of that particular development.  As part of the planning process, the planning authority engaged with the relevant authorities and providers to secure any necessary infrastructure changes.  Developers were not required to resolve existing issues.  If there were existing issues, he suggested that the first step would be to raise them directly with the infrastructure provider.

 

Developers gave quite sizeable contributions, but a lot went unseen.  New roads would be a very visible use of contributions, but the planning authority had to pay regard to the conclusions of the experts.  Whilst he acknowledged that there were delays at peak times in the village, this did not necessarily mean that the road system was unacceptable.

 

Cllr Cowper was aware that the centre of Liphook became very busy at peak times, which took it past the tipping point of acceptability.  This was a situation repeated throughout the south east of England.  He explained that Hampshire Highways assessed the impact of new developments with a highways model that calculated vehicle movements.  With developments in Liphook, this had concluded that there would not be enough traffic generated for significant highway investment.  However, the model could fail at detail level and discussions were being held to revive the possibility of a bypass.

 

Residents queried the five year housing land supply, as the proposed housing distribution figures showed that Liphook already had 624 completions and commitments out of a total allocation of 799 for the period 2011 - 2028.  This left 175 dwellings to be approved over the coming 14 years.  Surely having completed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

30.

Farnborough Air Space / Lasham Gliding Club

For Discussion/Information

Minutes:

The Forum received a presentation from Mr Julian Richardson and Mr Chris Hyett from the Lasham Gliding Society.

 

The proposal by TAG Farnborough Airport could have very serious effect on local people, by allowing an increased volume of jets to fly lower over the area.  It had to be assumed that TAG Farnborough would use the lower airspace requested, which could result in jets flying at 2,500 feet over Bordon.  This would generate noise levels of 69db, equivalent to standing 1m away from a vacuum cleaner.  Jets were less efficient and created more pollution at lower levels, causing environmental concerns.

 

TAG Farnborough were requesting airspace of 11,000 cubic k/m.  For comparison, Gatwick Airport had 600 cubic k/m. It had to be questioned whether this was a reasonable request.  Currently a 20 mile gap for recreational users existed between Southampton Airport’s airspace and Gatwick’s.  If Tag Farnborough’s proposal were to be agreed, the majority of this gap would have a height restriction of 2,500 feet for recreational users.  Only a 6 mile gap for higher flying over Petersfield would remain and it was predicted that the majority of recreational users would use the 6 mile gap, rather than fly below 2,500 feet. 

 

In either instance, the air space available would be significantly reduced, causing concerns of mid air collisions.

 

The consultation period was open until 2 May 2014 and details of how to respond could be found on TAG Farnborough’s website.

 

In response to questions, the reason behind the application was not known, nor was the likely outcome.  The consultation was a democratic process and would be reviewed by the Civil Aviation Authority.  It was therefore important that people responded if they had concerns.

 

The forum was concerned about these proposals and urged residents to respond to the consultation if they shared these concerns.  It was confirmed that EHDC had drawn upon the expertise of the Lasham Gliding Society and would respond to the consultation in the strongest possible terms.