PASSIONATE pleas by Liphook district councillors and villagers have prompted East Hampshire District Council to make a dramatic U-turn over the controversial planning application for the former OSU site in Midhurst Road. The council's south planning committee threw out plans for a mix of housing and commercial development on the 1.8 hectare site, as proposed by developer Tifftop Ltd, when it met last Thursday, despite being advised by planning officers to give it the go-ahead. This constituted a dramatic change of heart by the councillors, considering that they gave the thumbs- up to an almost identical application in January. The turnaround was prompted by a recommendation by the government inspector, Richard Hollox, in his report on the district council's local plan released at the beginning of April, that the King George's Hospital site should be used for housing instead of the commercial development for which it had been earmarked. This would make the OSU site the last commercial development space in the village. Although councils are not obliged to follow these recommendations, they need very strong justifications not to do so. When councillors reconsidered the Tifftop application at Thursday's meeting, it was accompanied by a report from planning officers expressing their support for the use of the site for a mix of residential and commercial development. The report also argued that the future of the King George's Hospital site should not have any bearing on the fate of the OSU site. The application by Tifftop proposes to build 10,000 square metres of office and industrial floor space in two phases, plus five live-work units and 48 residential homes. The council's planning committee approved the application in January because 10,000 sqm was the minimum amount of commercial space specified in its design brief. What angers opponents of the Tifftop scheme is that only 5,000 sq m of commercial space is guaranteed in the first phase: 3,000 sqm of light industrial units, 1,335 sqm of flexible commercial ground floor space and 725 sqm of office space. The other 5,000 sqm is to be provided by the four- storey office block that constitutes phase two of the scheme. But phase two is conditional on building taking place within 10 years, and if this does not happen, other smaller schemes can be considered. Despite the application having been approved in January, the developer appealed the decision on the grounds that the planning committee had exceeded the time-limit of eight weeks on planning decisions set by the government. Although the developer has declined to comment, it is widely believed that the real reason for the appeal was that Tifftop wanted a review of certain provisos that were written into the planning approval. The appeal is due to be considered at a public inquiry on June 15. Meanwhile Tifftop resubmitted its application to EHDC and it was this resubmission that the planning committee considered last Thursday. Speaking at the meeting on behalf of Liphook residents, Russell Ellis of The Avenue, pleaded with the council not to let the last major employment site in the area be used for housing and to hold out for a development that would deliver the minimum 10,000 sqm of commercial floor space as originally specified by the council. Mr Ellis said: "Some or all of the OSU site must be used for employment, having lost the Coachworks site and the King George's Hospital site." This view was echoed by Jim Walters, who represented Bramshott and Liphook Parish Council at the meeting. Mr Walters pointed out that the application did not fit in with the intentions of the government inspector, who, in his report on of the local plan, had upheld the use of the site for employment- generating commercial activity. He added that the parish council was in favour of live-work units, as contained in the application, but strongly objected to any development on the site that would not produce employment. "Liphook desperately needs an active employment site," he said. Councillor Guy Stacpoole agreed there was "considerable need for employment in the area", but took a contrary view and defended the application, saying that it was time to bring the matter to an end. The council needed to "deal in the art of the probable, rather than the art of desire," he said. "You can dream of 10,000 sqm for employment, but I don't think it will ever happen. We should respect our previous decision. I think it (the application) looks great. " Anna James expressed her disappointment with this view and advocated fighting the matter on appeal. She argued that the site had never been marketed properly as an employment site. So strongly did she feel about it that, when the committee voted against the proposal, she was overcome with emotion and fled the room. Committee chairman Sam James was in agreement with his wife. "We have to recognise the strategic importance of the site as one of the most important sites for development in the district," he said. He stressed that a planning consultants' report in 2001 had identified it as "one of the key quality employment sites in the district". But, in supporting the Tifftop development plan, the planning officers' report argued that "Liphook has had substantial additional housing development in the past six years and is likely to have more in the future". Such housing development could lead to an increased demand for employment floorspace, said the report. The public inquiry into the fate of the Tifftop application will be held at the Millennium Hall on June 15 and is scheduled to last for two days.
