OVERCROWDING in Liphook schools has been caused by Hampshire County Council's failure to demand cash for classrooms from developers, it was claimed this week.

Members of East Hampshire District Council's planning south committee were discussing Sainsbury's outline application to build 24 homes on land in the centre of Liphook previously reserved for a link road.

Liphook councillors strongly argued that Sainsbury's should be made to provide cash for an extra classroom at the infant school as part of the deal for planning permission.

But planning manager Ian Ellis told them he did not have the backing of education experts at Hampshire County Council to demand the money.

He told the meeting: "The education authority recognises that there will not be 30 children – a full classroom – resulting from this plan to justify asking Sainsbury's to pay the full £120,000 cost of a class room and for that reason they don't feel they can reasonably ask the applicant for the full cost."

Instead, said Mr Ellis, Hampshire County Council was asking for £900 per new home towards education in the village.

But Mr Ellis told councillors: "When this development was first mooted, the district council did try to obtain some commitment from the county as to what they needed by way of an education contribution to meet forthcoming pressures on schools.

"We never received any advice or request and therefore in the absence of any information, no contribution was sought because we as planners did not know what they would want and that particular opportunity was lost."

He said this could not be blamed on Sainsbury's or district planners, but on lack of information from the county council.

Mr Ellis added that the county council had also not helped district planners to get cash for classrooms from developers who had permission to build houses in the centre of Liphook.

"What was particularly galling to us as planners," he told the meeting, "was that there was no contribution for the 44 houses planned west of the Square. The county didn't or couldn't provide figures for us to ask for a contribution.

"We are hamstrung when we get no cooperation from the education authority. I have to say that the overcrowding in Liphook schools is not the fault of your planners or the developers.It is the education authority which hasn't got its act together in foreseeing the problems which will be caused by the developments."

Chairman of Bramshott and Liphook Parish Council Jim Walters told the meeting that both the infant and junior schools were having to turn prospective pupils away and only accept some following appeals.

He said there was overcrowding in both schools with particular problems being experienced in the infant school. He urged district councillors to insist Sainsbury's paid for a new classroom at the infant school.

Tony Cooke, Sainsbury's development consultant told the meeting that although not required to make an educational payment in the first phase of building, the company had given £20,000 as a "gesture" .

He said that 14 extra affordable units had been built during phase one, above what had been required of Sainsbury's.

Richard Hope said he believed that in view of the extra affordable homes built in the first phase, the current plan should look at the whole site in terms of cash for classrooms: "I have no doubt that the entire site justifies an extra classroom."

He added that if this was not possible, Sainsbury's should be made to build another house bringing the development up to a size that would require affordable housing. He said the planning application was clearly deliberately below the threshold and any inspector would see that.

"I can't believe it is unreasonable of us to do that," he said.

"If Sainsbury's are not willing to make a greater education contribution, I think we should look at the overall context. Overall the contribution being made by Sainsbury's for compensation for planning loss and the impact this development is having on the general community is insufficient and the way to address it, if they will not give an education contribution is through affordable housing. "

Anna James said Sainsbury's site was still not finished and already there were children in Liphook who could not be accommodated in the village schools.

She pointed out that Sainsbury's were required to provide £700 per house for transport contributions but there were parents who could have to drive children to Bordon, Grayshott and Headley for schooling.

Despite the pleas of Liphook councillors district councillors voted to give outline planning permission for 12 flats and 12 houses on the former link road site.

But they refused detailed planning permission for the plan, because they said the design was "dreadful".

Council leader Elizabeth Cartwright told the planning committee she believed the whole thing should be redesigned: "This is a prominent area of Liphook on the edge of the village green and no way are these landmark buildings."

David Clegg added that the development looked like a "Lego design."

"It is dreadful to think this is what we have ended up with at the beginning of the 21st century. If we are to enter into the spirit of PPG3 (heavier density housing) we must get better design."