Liphook's OSU site is set for major redevelopment - providing both commercial regeneration and housing for the village. Despite vehement opposition from Liphook's parish and district councillors, developers have been given the go- ahead for 10,000sqm of office and industrial space and 53 new homes on village centre site. But the scheme, almost identical to the one rejected last summer, will be split into two phases, raising fears that only half the coveted employment space will come to fruition. Permission was granted by East Hampshire District Council's south planning committee last week. But Liphook councillors Anna and Sam James did not roll over without a fight and urged colleagues to oppose the plans. Both were angered by the inclusion of housing on the site that had originally been designated for employment use only. Mr James told the committee that although he welcomed the amended scheme, it did not go far enough. "This site is one of the key employment sites in the district,'" he said. "Many, many, many houses have already been built on the OSU site, which should have enabled this commercial use to be developed long before now." And the argument that the inclusion of houses made the commercial development financially viable did not sit well with Mrs James either. "Officers say this residential element could kick start the rest," she said. "Two hundred houses were built on the site, that didn't kick start it. "We gave permission for another 24 on the Sainsbury's site and that didn't kick start it either." Mrs James added that the original design brief had said there was scope for "some" residential use above shops. She added that the five live/work units were within that brief but the additional 48 flats and houses were not. But their pleas, along with those of Bramshott and Liphook Parish Council, to reject the scheme, fell on deaf ears and councillors voted overwhelmingly in support of the plans that could lead to the economic regeneration of the village. The scheme comprises more than 10,000sqm of commercial floor space, as stipulated in the council's design brief, and includes an additional 48 new homes plus five live/work unit. Nick Makasis, an agent for GML Architects which designed the development, said that not only did it meet the council's requirement in terms of overall employment space, but it also offered the broadest range of commercial uses. He said that phase one would provide for 280 jobs, 30 more than projected in Liphook for the next six years and that it would also bear the infrastructure costs of phase two. Mr Makasis added that the plan offered an "holistic" approach to the site that offered economic regeneration now. The scheme breakdown includes 3,000sqm of light industrial units, 1,335 sqm of flexible commercial ground floor space, 725sqm of office space plus an additional four-storey office block providing nearly 5,000sqm complete with additional underground car parking. But it is the four-storey office block, comprising almost half the allocated employment space, that has been the focus of much attention. Its design, with two floors of underground car parking, has been praised by all, including Sam and Anna James. But it represents phase two of the scheme and while the land is designated for employment use if, after 10 years, the block has not been built, other smaller schemes could be considered. This "phasing" angered opponents of the plans, who stated that only 5,000sqm of commercial development is actually being guaranteed in return for 53 additional homes. But planning officers told the committee that in economic terms, development was needed as soon as possible. Summarising the report of the council's economic development and tourism manager, planning officer Jeremy Heppell said: "He is basically saying let's get a move on. "This site has been vacant for too long."