A developer is facing a border dispute as plans to build 68 dwellings in a village between Petersfield and Liphook have met strong opposition on both sides of the county line.

Liss and Rogate parish councils have both objected to plans by AYG Holdings Beeches Ltd to redevelop the Heathmount and Copper Beaches site off London Road in Rake.

The plans involve the conversion of Heathmount and the demolition and replacement of two adjacent care homes.

Half the housing would be affordable but the project’s scale is eye-opening – as it’s probably the biggest in Rake’s history and would increase the village’s housing stock by around 50 per cent.

Since the proposed development lies on the edge of the Hampshire-West Sussex border, planning committees at Liss and Rogate parish councils respectively held well-attended meetings on Monday and Tuesday (June 9 & 10).

And the verdict was near enough the same: development on the site is not opposed, but this is the wrong scheme.

Concerns about sustainability, location, car dependence, design and impact were raised during the first meeting in Liss village hall.

The LPC Planning Committee say the site is outside a development boundary and believe the “urbanising” scheme will undermine the character of the B2070 ridge.

There was a similar response the following evening in Rake where around 40 people gathered in the village hall for the RPC equivalent.

Rogate Parish Council was critical of the South Downs National Park Authority as no earlier meeting could be arranged while requests to extend Tuesday’s deadline for comments were snubbed.

Patrick Graham and David Ramsey did most of the talking for the applicants, with the latter lauding the open spaces, housing mix and environmental aspects of the scheme.

He said: “There will be a sensitive conservation of Heathmount and all different sizes of houses in a high quality residential development.

“A lot of this scheme has been landscape-led with input from the SNDPA and 50 per cent of housing will be affordable in a mix of types.”

But while affordable housing is welcome, the decision to concentrate them all in two blocks at the SNDPA’s alleged request is not.

Questions about earlier clearances – there were claims the development would result in the loss of just seven trees – were asked while Suzanne Burns raised concerns about site security, vandalism and arson, with some recent trespassers travelling from the other site of Southampton.

“I actually think this village needs more houses, low-cost housing for young people in particular, but I don’t think the way this has started has been very good,” said one villager to a round of applause.

“I’m actually pro-development in some form but the scale of the scheme is not in-keeping and not deliverable,” said another in forcing the applicants to admit that not all their proposals meet current policy.

The developers were also accused of skewing a traffic consultation to favour their scheme while concerns about the impact on sewage and schools were also raised as Rake Primary has a waiting list.