FEARS that a war between developers in Petersfield will mean no new affordable homes being built in the town have been voiced by Petersfield town councillors.

John Crowhurst told members of the planning committee this week that the future looked bleak for Petersfield people on lower incomes, who could not afford to buy homes in the town on the open market.

He was speaking about a massive new plan to develop 275 homes together with a primary school, community centre and public open space at Causeway Farm, which is seen as a rival to the proposal from Bryant Homes for 276 homes off Ramshill.

Mr Crowhurst said he feared that if the Causeway plan submitted by Phillips Build Ltd was refused, the decision would be legally challenged.

ÒIt is part of the Causeway developerÕs strategy to challenge the Ramshill site,Ó he told town councillors, Òand it will be challenged on a sequential test of which one is closest to the town centre.Ó

ÒWhat I am very worried about is that if we go through this scenario with a challenge to the Ramshill site, we will have no affordable housing coming through in Petersfield until 2004.Ó

There had only been eight affordable units built in the town in the last three years, claimed Mr Crowhurst.

ÒTo my mind the situation is pretty grim. These applications do not take into consideration the needs of the town for affordable housing.Ó

Mr Crowhurst said he did not believe town councillors could discuss the Causeway application Òuntil the fog had clearedÓ over whether there would be a legal challenge to Ramshill and it had become clear where the Causeway plan stood in relation to the emerging local plan.

Chris Jenner told town councillors he believed they should object to the Causeway plan on the grounds that it was not earmarked as a site in the current local plan.

But Phillip Humphries, chairing the meeting, told him it was a site proposed in the emerging local plan.

ÒHowever the plans are very much conceptual,Ó he told fellow councillors.

ÒThere are a number of details which are very pertinent to our consideration which are not there.Ó

He said he believed town councillors should get an East Hampshire District Council planner to talk them through the proposals.

Mary Vincent said she was deeply concerned because the site proposed for the school and community centre was flooded every winter.

The planning committee deferred consideration of the plan so that it could arrange a meeting with a planning officer.

In the meantime Causeway Farm residents have launched a website to help objectors to the outline planning application.

Resident Philip Haines explained: ÒThis application needs to be rejected outright. It is a site that is not allocated for housing, and the proper place to debate the potential future issue of development at Causeway Farm is next yearÕs public inquiry into the local plan. This application is needless and simply puts an additional burden on EHDC council tax payers.Ó

He said the web site - http://www.causewayfarm.com">www.causewayfarm.com - had been established to help potential objectors understand the issues, keep them up to date and give them guidance to objecting. It was important for people to write or email EHDC by Friday May 17, he said.

ÒLocal residents should look seriously at this application as, although it is only for 275 dwellings currently, the applicantÕs own submission shows that this could rise to over 500,Ó warned Mr Haines.

East Hampshire district councillors are to hold a site meeting on Ramshill thismorning (Friday) to look at the site proposed for 276 new houses by Bryant Homes.

Members of the public have been invited, and the Ramshill action group Residents Against Development At Ramshill will be represented by Ron Tate.

Mr Tate was due to report on the latest developments of the Ramshill plan to the annual meeting of the Sheet Village Association last night.

He said RADAR would continue to press for Ògreener credential,Ó recognising the nature conservation value of the site.

There had been a change to the access arrangements, he said, which he hoped would address some of the safety concerns but would not reduce the traffic generation.

ÒOur outstanding concerns include such matters as safety concerns, the impact of emergency routes and cycleways on historic sunken lanes, the need to route cycleways away from potential junction hazards and, most important of all, the impact that this quantity of development will have on local infrastructure, particularly schools and health provision.

ÒThe development provides nothing that will improve local facilities.Ó