A DEEPLY unpopular development is how the Chiltley Farm Action Group described the proposed poultry farm development in Chiltley Lane on the final day of the appeal hearing.

Action group spokesman Alistair Halliday was roundly applauded by the public in the gallery when he delivered his reasons under the rule-six agreement to government inspector Christine Downes on why the proposed development of 100 houses should be refused.

He pointed out the site was inappropriately and unsustainably located, lying outside the settlement boundary of Liphook and would be a car-led development because of its distance from the facilities, schools and services of Liphook.

He raised concerns about accessibility and traffic issues and stated the proposed development would harm the recognised special character of the area, claiming the plans were not in keeping with the existing environment and would have unacceptably impact on residents’ living conditions.

“We maintain the development, with an increase of 37,000 car movements, with only one real route in and out of the village, will significantly add to the severe congestion across the village centre,” he said.

“Every car heading for the A3 has no alternative but to pass through The Square.

“Moreover it will add to the congestion on Midhurst Road and it will exacerbate the known safety concerns in the vicinity of the railway bridge, known to be a hazardous area by all those who know Liphook.

“There has been much talk of the bus service as a palliative to resolve these issues,” he stated. “None of the options in the document to Hampshire County Council relating to the one bus route Liphook has, the 250, is acceptable or viable when looked at in any detail.

“Every option involves taking away the arm of the service that serves the existing Gunns Farm estate. No-one on Gunns Farm has been told they would be losing their bus service if the Poultry Farm development goes ahead.

“In respect of the extra bus run at 1.30pm – if that ever goes ahead – we cannot see how it helps anything and we consider it to be unlikely to entice people onto the bus rather than use their cars. Even with this, the bus only operates in the mornings from 9.30am-1.30pm.

“We struggle to understand who this bus service is aimed at – when it so clearly would not be suitable for children going to school – as the service only starts at 9.30am or for people going to work – as you can’t come back home on it.”

Mr Halliday concluded: “Chiltley Farm Action Group considers – whether or not there is a five-year land supply in East Hampshire, the appeal should fail.

“While we acknowledge we are not experts in this field, there has been a very recent Local Plan Examination in which a fully informed inspector has clearly said Liphook has secured its allocations. While that is happening, the neighbourhood plan is coming forward and is very likely to allocate further housing sites.

“That will be a fully democratic process with a public consultation. It seems illogical to us at Chiltley Farm Action Group to impose this further housing site on the village in the light of what the Local Plan Inspector said only a matter of weeks ago.”

Timothy Leader, representing the planning authority, East Hampshire District Council, also recommended dismissal of the appeal.

He confirmed the Site Allocations Plan had just been adopted which reflected the considerable time and resources invested by the council and residents to enable them to control what he called “this sort of unwanted speculative development, which is proposed in the wrong place at the wrong time”.

“The site is in agricultural use and viewed from Chiltley Lane and the adjacent Berg Estate, it adds to the rural setting of the village,” he said. “Judged by the weight of objection to the development it is one highly valued by the local community. There is clear and substantial conflict with the development plan, which indicates the scheme is unsustainable in terms of Liphook in particular.

“The alleged benefits of the scheme are unexceptional and it should be borne in mind that the site is not well located relative to the main body of the village.”

Rupert Warren QC, representing Bloor Homes Southern, concentrated on meeting housing needs in his closing statement.

“The appeal proposals would deliver 100 units of accommodation within the next five years, 40 of those units would be affordable.

“Both types of housing would meet needs and prove highly beneficial for Liphook and the district.

“No dispute exists over the significant weight that ought to be attributed to the 40 units of affordable housing, since there has been and remains, an acute need for affordable housing in the district, which is particularly severe in Liphook.

“It is inherent in the joint core strategy and allocations development plan document that permissions beyond the allocated sites will be needed to meet the overall need and that is true in Liphook as well.

“For these reasons, the provision of market housing should be give significant weight, even if it is concluded that a five-year housing land supply can be demonstrated at present.

“If permission were granted, there would be no perceptible negative impact on the overall spatial strategy for housing in East Hampshire.

“The proposals represent sustainable development as far as the highway authority is concerned. The travel plan, along with improvements to the 250 bus service, and the pedestrian connectivity to the railway station, have satisfied them the scheme will bring benefits.”

He concluded it was is a good site for housing, despite not being the council’s favoured site.