A LAST-DITCH plea to increase grants for important projects in Petersfield has been turned down by the town council.

And Petersfield in Bloom co-ordinator Dick King says the town councilÕs failure to support its application for a grant of £11,760 could mean this year will be the last for the voluntary group.

At a meeting on Monday night, John Crowhurst asked for more money to support Petersfield in Bloom, PetersfieldÕs Christmas lights fund and a project for erosion work at the Heath.

But after a fierce debate councillors voted against the proposal and accepted next yearÕs budget.

A request from the Christmas lights fund for £12,000 has been chopped to £6,000 and Petersfield in Bloom volunteers were disappointed to see their application for funds slashed to £6,000, almost half the amount they had asked for.

At the meeting Mr Crowhurst made a plea to councillors to reconsider the allocation to the two voluntary organisations.

He said giving only £6,000 to the Christmas lights fund would leave little incentive for a new organisation to take up the challenge of providing the display every year.

Mr Crowhurst said this year was an important one for the townÕs In Bloom committee, which is hoping to organise special displays for the celebration of the QueenÕs jubilee.

He told councillors that if they want Petersfield to become a credible gateway to the proposed national park, they should vote for the increase in grants.

He warned that the success or failure of the organisations could depend on the level of funding granted this year.

He said: ÒThese two organisations are very important to the appearance of the town and the well-being of its inhabitants.Ó

Mr Crowhurst was supported in his motion by Katie Pitt, Mary Vincent and Elsa Bulmer. But in a recorded vote, councillors decided to stick to the original allocations set out in this yearÕs budget.

Dr Phillip Humphries was keen to point out that the town councilÕs decision not to increase the grants was not a sign that the council did not support the voluntary organisations.

He said: ÒI think itÕs vital that we make clear this is not an anti Petersfield in Bloom vote or an anti Christmas lights vote. ItÕs just not the right time for an increase like this.Ó

Dr Humphries also pointed out that in previous years the In Bloom committee had benefited from steady increases in grants and this yearÕs allocation was a 20 per cent increase on last year.

After the meeting the co-ordinator of Petersfield in Bloom, Dick King, said he was disappointed that the appeal had been turned down but said it was anticipated.

He said: ÒHaving listened to the council debate, what concerned me more was the intransigent view taken by the majority of councillors that Petersfield in Bloom was considered just another charity with a begging bowl.

ÒOur committee works very hard to ensure that areas of Petersfield, some long abandoned by town, district and county councils, are planted for the summer tourist season for the benefit of Petersfield as a whole.Ó

He added: ÒIn my view, the town council should be at the forefront of this initiative but seems to prefer to allow volunteers, with no cash income, to undertake the responsibilities of a parks department or contracts manager.

ÒThis decision will greatly affect our plans for this year and we will issue a statement following discussion in committee next week, but donÕt be surprised if the QueenÕs jubilee year is the swansong for Petersfield in Bloom.Ó

Mr CrowhurstÕs third plea of the evening was for money to pay for erosion work at the Sussex Road bank of the Heath pond.

He pointed out that the town council paid £250,000 to dredge half the pond some years ago and said the council was neglecting its investment by not allocating more funds to pond maintenance.

The proposal was turned down at a vote but councillors agreed it was an important project that should be considered in the near future.