DEVELOPERS planning to build an industrial estate on the outskirts of Petersfield have admitted the proposed site has not been earmarked for employment. The admission came after a presentation to district councillors by the team behind plans to relocate JB Corrie to a site at the southern entrance to the town last Thursday (March 1) night. As reported in last week's Herald, the fencing manufacturer is desperately seeking a new base in Petersfield and at the same time create an "enterprise centre" for start-up businesses on the land which lies beyond the last house on The Causeway, opposite the lay-by. Following the presentation, Liphook district councillor Anna James asked developers if the proposed site had been allocated for employment in the Local Plan. Developers said the site had previously been included as an employment site, but a government planning inspector had subsequently taken it out. They argued the inspector had not looked into the details of employment on the site and said the combined development package being presented was a new consideration which he hoped would "override the inspectors' objections". The team of developers, which included Corrie managing director Hugh Kennedy, also told councillors they were keen to begin work on the project "as soon as possible". The team said if planning permission was granted, they would hope to start work on the site by the end of the year and expected the project to then be completed within a 12 month period. JB Corrie, which has been in Petersfield since 1946 and employs 140 people, wants to provide a state- of-the-art new home on two acres of the four acre site along with the enterprise centre for new businesses. The business centre would consist of units ranging from 750 to 1,500 square feet, so as businesses grew they could move to larger units on the same site. But the project hinges on Corrie getting planning permission to redevelop its current home in Frenchman's Road with a mix of 52 flats and town houses, including 18 affordable homes. But the scheme has created a storm of protest from outraged residents on The Causeway, who have branded the plans "horrendous" and last week packed into Petersfield Town Council's debating chamber to object to the plans. East Hampshire District Council included the Causeway South in the second review of its Local Plan which went before the inspector in 2003. It was specifically allocated to include an enterprise centre after a need was identified in Petersfield for small premises to enable start-up businesses to be accommodated and for small businesses wanting to expand. The council wanted to use a range of small units on the site along with an enterprise centre of some 2,500 square metres floor space. But officers commented: "The site adjoins a watercourse which feeds into the River Rother. Development may have a detrimental impact on the high water quality and nature conservation value of the river and its tributaries. Developers of the site will be required to investigate the potential impact of development and any mitigation measures required. The landscaped setting of the watercourse should also be protected and enhanced. A public footpath crosses the site and adequate measures should be taken to ensure that a safe and attractive route is maintained. Subject to further investigation it may be possible to divert the footpath along the site of the watercourse." Officers added: "The site lies close to a watercourse with a potential for flooding. Developers should contact the Environment Agency at an early date to ascertain any requirements for the site. In particular, there will be a need to determine the one in 100 year flood plain within which no development will be allowed. This may impose restrictions on the developable area. Surface water run off should be attenuated. No development will be allowed within eight metres of the bank of the watercourse." But the Government Inspector recommended the deletion of the site from the Local Plan after his Public Inquiry, and district councillors said they felt there was no "valid justification" for objecting to his conclusion and they deleted the site from their employment allocation in the Local Plan