DEVELOPERS who want to put houses on the disused Petersfield organ factory have been accused of misleading planners in their application for planning permission.

Outline plans for a terrace of 13 homes with car parking at the former Henry Willis organ factory site, from 87 to 91 Rushes Road, have been submitted to East Hampshire District Council by Kingcup Property Holdings Ltd, who took over the site from Henry Willis and Sons Ltd in January last year.

Planning permission has already been given for change of use to a community arts centre.

And the new scheme is a blow to the Petersfield Rotunda Arts Project, which has spent two years looking at ways of raising funds to buy the former organ

factory.

Roger Tallon, one of the leading lights in the arts project told The Herald: ÒAn offer of £750,000 from us was accepted by the present owner, but the agent has informed us that he is only willing to accept offers over £1m, which they consider is the market price of the site.Ó

On Tuesday night the plans were discussed by members of Petersfield Town CouncilÕs planning committee.

Planning chairman Mary Vincent told the meeting she was concerned about the accuracy of some information in the planning application. ÒThe entire blurb is misleading,Ó she said.

ÒKingcup say they cannot sell the site for employment use and yet I have information that there have been several offers, but every time there is an offer the price goes up.Ó

ÒOne of the commercial businesses interested in the site has now ended up in Froxfield because they made an offer

and it was turned down,Ó she added, Òbut they would still be interested in buying it

and want to come back to Petersfield.Ó

She said planning permission already existed to turn the building into a multi-purpose arts centre offering educational and social prospects for the community as a whole.

ÒIt would retain the building and create employment for the people of Petersfield in a building ideally suited. The building already has change of use and the car parking problem is being addressed.Ó

Ms Vincent said the plan did not offer any cheaper affordable housing to the town and the homes would be more expensive houses for commuters.

ÒIf the plan was going to provide some affordable housing it might be a different question,Ó she said.

Councillor Chris Jenner said the site was a sensitive area and in some ways it may be feasible to change its change, but members had to bear in mind its potential as a commercial site.

ÒThere are ways and means for a

developer to claim a site is unsaleable,Ó he warned, Òby marketing it at too high a

price and it may or may not be the case here.Ó

But he said that car parking was crucial at the site, which was close enough to the station to come within the range of commuter parking. ÒIf this is re-zoned as residential then somewhere else must be zoned to replace as as a commercial site,Ó he told

the meeting.

Councillor Sue Wright said she believed it was crucial to retain the site for employment use, Òand the likelihood of having another site that is as suitable is very remote.Ó

She added: ÒThe car parking would create havoc Ð I donÕt see how Kingcup could legitimately suggest that amount of car parking for that amount of housing.Ó

Ken Hick said he believed planners at East Hampshire District Council should

be aware that the site was previously known as PotterÕs Flood and was prone to flooding.

ÒIt was marshy land and I am not at

all sure residential development would be allowed there,Ó he claimed and added: ÒWe have information that the area has flooded in the last three years and houses would have trouble getting insurance there.Ó

He said he was concerned about the loss of employment land, which was needed in Petersfield.

Town councillors have objected to the plan on the grounds that it would mean a loss of employment land.

They were also concerned about possible flooding and about misleading information being given to them with regard to the loss of trees and hedgerows and with regard to the inability to sell the

premises.