A ROW has broken out at East Hampshire District Council over a decision which some fear could put the areaÕs listed buildings at risk.

Councillors at last weekÕs annual meeting were dismayed to receive a development policy report outlining a decision to reduce the cover provided by an over-stretched heritage team.

In it, Sue Halstead reported that the teamÕs workload had increased in line with the number of planning applications and new tree preservation orders received.

In addition, the department was suffering from a shortage of staff which was making it impossible for them to meet the demand.

As a result, changes had been made to the working practices of principal conservation officer Andrew Dick and arboricultural officer Stewart Garside.

Mr Dick, she said, would be concentrating only on applications affecting Grade I and II* listed buildings, buildings at risk, buildings in the Alton Conservation Area Partnership Scheme, churches and buildings owned by charities.

He would provide a more limited advice service to planning control officers on applications affecting Grade II listed buildings and buildings in conservation areas.

North planning chairman Patrick Burridge further confirmed that steps had already been taken to train planning officers in conservation work.

Holybourne councillor Jerry Janes was unimpressed. He pointed out that the current conservation documents stated that East Hampshire District Council had a responsibility to the public to provide a comprehensive heritage service and if this was to change then the public should be consulted about it.

Andrew Dick, he acknowledged, had done Òa tremendous jobÓ, but if he was unable to cope with the workload he should be given additional help.

ÒThe problem is that we are not funding the kind of service we need,Ó said Mr Janes.

Judy Onslow (Greatham) expressed concern over Grade II listed buildings, some of which would need to be upgraded as time went on. While Anne Storey (Four Marks) was keen that the issue of staffing levels be given priority when funds became available to enable the heritage department to continue the work it was set up to do.

There was grave concern also over the plight of the arboricultural officer.

According to Mrs Halstead, the number of Tree Preservation Orders had more than doubled over the past 10 years and this, together with an increase in planning application consultations, had meant that Mr Garside had been forced to prioritise his work. In future he would be concentrating on applications affecting trees with TPOs and trees in conservation areas. He would continue to provide an advice service to Planning Control, but would not be able to provide detailed advice to the public.

Mrs Storey found this unacceptable. Her fear was that if there was no-one to give advice to the public the area would be in danger of losing a great number of magnificent trees.

Broadening the subject, Bryan Timms (Medstead) pointed out that there were staffing problems within the whole of the planning department which was under enormous pressure to meet government targets.

One area which could be improved, he suggested, was in the enforcement department which had dealt with a total of some 60 cases within the past two months, 44 of which had revealed no breach of planning.

While at present the department was acting on phone calls alone, Mr Timms suggested that if people were compelled to put their complaints in writing and warned that a penalty would be extracted for any fictitious information, the workload could be substantially reduced.

Having listened to all the concerns, Sue Halstead agreed that shortage of staff was an issue and that the heritage department in particular should be considered a priority.

The planning review, she said, should highlight all these issues.