PETERSFIELD looks set to find itself at the centre of a tug-of-war between campaigners who want the town left out of the proposed South Downs National Park and those who are fighting to keep it inside the boundary.

The influential Sussex Downs Conservation Board decided on Friday to recommend that Petersfield should be excluded from the proposed boundary, with Lewes and the wealden land to the north of the downs.

Members of the board said they were concerned that money would be spent on Òessentially urban issuesÓ in Petersfield and Lewes at the expense of the conservation of the landscape.

Stunned Petersfield supporters branded the move a Òslap in the faceÓ this week and other conservationists hit back, criticising the board for its lack of vision and urging it to reconsider.

The lack of support from the board will come as a major blow to those in Petersfield who are fighting to remain within the proposed boundary.

They had to battle for inclusion when they discovered that the town and the A3 corridor north to Liss had been left out of the original proposals from the Countryside Agency.

Determined campaigners put up a strong fight and managed to get both Petersfield and Liss included in the current proposals.

This week Petersfield Town CouncilÕs spokesman on the national park, Phill Humphries, told The Herald: ÒOur position remains the same. Petersfield should be in the park and I cannot see how the proposed national park could achieve its objectives without a gateway town like Petersfield being included.Ó

He added: ÒTo chop it out makes very little sense in the way the park is managed and it makes very little sense in social terms.

ÒAdded to which, I would still maintain that apart from the service aspect there is also the added beauty aspect by virtue of the Heath, the historic town centre and all the other facilities the town provides.Ó

And members of the South Downs Campaign have been quick to react to what they see as a worrying move by the Sussex Downs Conservation Board.

In a statement released immediately after the boardÕs vote in Chichester, members said: ÒThe South Downs Campaign feels that these two towns cannot just be separated from their hinterlands and the surrounding South Downs landscape and that including them was both positive and imaginative.Ó

The campaign added that the foot-and-mouth epidemic last year showed that the issues between town and country could not be as easily divorced as some people thought.

Members added that people in Petersfield would be angry that a body in Sussex had voted to push them out. ÒThis is nothing less than a slap in the face for all their hard work.Ó

ÒWe believe that the majority of residents in these towns want to be included and will feel seriously let down by the board.

This was a very disappointing vote on behalf of the board, who have failed to show any vision for the future. It is nothing less than a slap in the face for all their hard work.Ó

Owen Plunkett, spokesman for the Hampshire Area RamblersÕ Association, said his members were ÒappalledÓ by the vote.

ÒWe would urge the Sussex Downs Conservation Board to reconsider this hasty decision, particularly as it failed to discuss the fate of these areas if they were left outside the boundary,Ó he said.