WITH a little more than a month remaining before the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs' (Defra) deadline on the decision on whether to include Petersfield in the national park, the public are being urged to have their say. Both the South Downs Society (SDS) and the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) are keen to keep the issue in the public's mind before the recently extended deadline of September 23. This week, the SDS called on the government to go along with its own environmental advisors in setting up a South Downs National Park with wide boundaries. A major public inquiry held between 2003 and 2005 heard evidence for and against the national park and the report from the inquiry inspector has at last been made public. But while the inspector has come out firmly in favour of setting up the park, he has recommended leaving out some attractive small towns and villages and a large area of Hampshire which lies north of the familiar chalk ridge. "It's great news that we now look almost certain to get the national park," said South Downs Society director Jacquetta Fewster, "but it's devastating that, after all the hard work by the society, the South Downs Campaign and others, a big piece of the land identified for the park by the government's own Countryside Agency could now be left without the proper planning protection and management that the National Park would bring. "People living in and around places like Petersfield, Liss, Midhurst and Petworth will be most concerned about being left out of the park, but anyone with a love of the Downs will have reasons to be worried. We will be doing all we can to stop the park being watered down." With locals concerned about the threat posed by developers, and whether Petersfield and its surrounding villages should be outside the national park, the body is urging people to comment on the plans. Ministers are asking for comments on the inspector's report, and the society has today drawn attention to discrepancies in the report and some of its conclusions. They will be submitting a dossier of detailed evidence in support of putting the missing land back into the park and demanding that the public inquiry be re-opened if there is any possibility of the park being reduced in size. The society is calling on everyone who shares its concerns for the park to respond vigourously to the consultation, to contact their MP, and to sign the online petition at petitions.pm.gov.uk. And John Venning, chairman of the East Hampshire district group of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, also urged the town to make its concerns known. "Defra's ministers have wisely extended the time in which people can present their views, until September 23. "May I urge everyone who loves this land of ours, whether or not they think they will be personally and directly affected by the changes, to make sure their views are registered in Whitehall. "Details of what is proposed and of how to respond can be found via the websites of the South Downs Campaign and CPRE. The national park issue has yielded a strong response from a variety of councillors, with Petersfield district councillor Anne Claxton and county councillor Sam Payne arguing strongly for Petersfield's inclusion. "Petersfield is an historic market town and together with the Rother Valley is an integral part of the wider landscape, yet it suddenly finds itself excluded," said Mrs Claxton. "Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty around steep, and steep marsh also suddenly find themselves on the wrong side of boundary, along with the fields around Bedales School and parts of Buriton. "AONBs are supposed to have exactly the same status as a national park. If these areas were good enough to be included in the original park boundary, why have they now been removed?" Last week, long-standing town councillor Kenneth Hick cited the proposals as the most important planning legislation facing the town for more than years. "I have been involved in the planning of Petersfield since I joined the Urban District Council in 1965, and never have such important proposals for the future of the Petersfield area been placed before us," he said. "We may not clearly see the value of being in the national park," he continued, "but I am sure that we all have a clear view of the dangers of being left out of it," he added. And Petersfield Town Council issued a strong response to Defra's inspector last week, echoing sentiments that the town must be included within its boundaries. Spencer Wisdom surmised opinion in a meeting last week: "I would argue that this is still a rural town, still a market town, and it aspires to continue to be a rural market town. "I think remaining part of the national park would go a long way to making sure Petersfield doesn't become a clone town," he added.
