GREAT stretches of East Hampshire will be at the mercy of developers if they are not inside the new South Downs National park. This is the overwhelming concern of conservationists across the district following the shock new boundary lines which have been proposed by the government inspector. On Thursday they turned out in force to voice their strong objections. There were representatives from dozens of interested groups at an afternoon seminar organised by East Hampshire District Council (EHDC). And in the evening protesters held a banner-waving demonstration objecting to the proposed new park boundary before district councillors began their emergency meeting to give a formal response. Many fear a u-turn on the boundary lines – particularly the exclusion of the western Weald, which includes Liss, Petersfield, the Rother Valley, Woolmer Longmoor, Steep and Stroud – is a political ploy to squeeze yet more new homes in the area. The fear is heightened by the threat that Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty which are left out of the park may well lose their AONB status as well. This would make them prime targets for development land, especially in view of the news that the south east will be expected to take even more houses than currently allocated for the area. EHDC deputy chief executive Daphne Gardner warned councillors at the start of the meeting: "The government wants us to have more houses in the south east. We in East Hampshire could be vulnerable to pressure for more housing, particularly the A3 corridor, if it is not in the national park and does not have AONB status. She said the advent of the Hindhead Tunnel could lead to even further pressure on the immediate area as it would be more accessible. Tony Ludlow, leader of the Liberal Democrats at EHDC, made a desperate plea for unity. He told councillors their response to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) consultation would carry far more weight if they reflected the views of the public. "We must find the areas where we all agree and push these strongly and don't put too much weight on the other areas." Adam Carew made a strong case for the inclusion of Woolmer – the Longmoor Ranges – and Blackmoor, which were outline the proposed new boundary. And Elizabeth Cartwright set out the stall for the A3 corridor, including Liss and Petersfield which have also been omitted in the new plans. Mrs Cartwright, who represents the council on the South Downs joint committee, said: "Past assessments have consistently recognised the high value of our landscape in East Hampshire. The inspector's new report does not do this justice." She added: "The inspector has based his recommendations on a landscape assessment which has not been published and produced a boundary which has never been examined publicly. There is also no mention of cultural heritage or historic landscapes in his report." Anne Claxton warned that if Petersfield lost its AONB status because it was excluded from the park "there would be an explosion of building in this area". Patrick Burridge, chairman of the council's development policy panel, said he supported the widest possible national park boundary and objected strongly to the current proposal. He warned that EHDC was in danger of being "thrown much larger housing numbers" if it didn't fight the boundary. And Jennifer Gray told councillors she didn't believe the inspector had ever been to Steep, Stroud or Steep Marsh after reading his comments that Steep Marsh looked "suburban". In its submission to Defra, the council has "strongly objected" to the exclusion of the non-chalk ridge areas from the proposed park. These include the A3 corridor, the Rother Valley, the northern hangers, the Wealden heaths, Woolmer, Longmoor, Liss and Petersfield. The council argued that these areas were excellent in quality and beauty, were integral to the wider South Downs landscape, and offered good opportunities for countryside recreation. The council criticised the inspector's report for not defining accurately the A3 corridor. It recommended that a clear definition be published to enable the public to comment properly. Councillors called for a public inquiry and stressed that they wanted to appear at the inquiry.