PETERSFIELD town councillors are making strong objections to controversial plans for 275 homes, a school and community centre on land next to the Causeway.

At a planning meeting on Tuesday night councillors said there were many questions still unanswered over the huge outline planning application submitted by Phillips Build Ltd.

Although they recognised the need for affordable homes in Petersfield and possibly the need for a school, they agreed that: ÒThis council can only take one position on the application, and that is to object ,as it is a departure from the local plan policy.Ó

Town councillors were particularly concerned to learn that although a school was proposed in the plan, there was no guarantee that the developers would pay for it.

Senior planning officer Jeremy Heppell, making a special presentation to town councillors, told the committee: ÒThe county education department says these are not the plans they want both in location, size and the position of the playing fields.Ó

He said there were question marks over whether the developer would pay for the school or just promise the land.

ÒThere is nothing I can find anywhere in the application over whether the developer would pay for the school,Ó Mr Heppell told the meeting.

ÒIt appears to be implied but there is nothing concrete I can find.Ó

Mr Heppell added that there was also a question mark over the need for a community centre, as a legal agreement already existed to provide a facility on land behind the Jolly Sailor pub, close to the site.

There were also concerns over the access to the site, said Mr Heppell, which was proposed between 104 and 108 The Causeway, with traffic light controls on the access road and the Causeway.

ÒThe highways report submitted with the plan relies on a survey carried out two years ago, pre-Tesco, so we have some concerns about that and so do the county highways department,Ó he said.

It had been suggested that the developers should look at an access via a new fourth road off the new Tesco roundabout, he told the meeting.

Mr Heppell told councillors there were several issues on the site which concerned planners.

The Southern Stream ran through the site, said Mr Heppell.

ÒThis has a flooding issue which is a major constraint.Ó

He said there was also a 17th-century listed barn on the site and other buildings which were of historical interest.

In addition two footpaths, the Hangers Way and the footpath from Sussex Road, ran through the site, and there were a number of Bronze Age barrows in the area which would need to be investigated.

ÒThe Petersfield Conser-vation Area abuts the site and it is also high-quality agricultural land, which needs to be addressed, along with the fact that we believe there are badgers on the land,Ó claimed Mr Heppell.

But he said the plan was a departure from the current local plan, which showed the site in the countryside and outside the policy boundary for Petersfield.

ÒThe developers appear to be relying on the second review of the local plan, which proposes this site as a reserve housing site allocated in two stages.

This means the application is premature to the second review because it wonÕt come into force until 2004 to 2005. Even then the application is premature because the Causeway is not a baseline site. Reserve sites may be required only if future monitoring of housing shows that East Hampshire is falling short.Ó

The site was sixth and 16th on the reserve list, said Mr Heppell.

ÒThat is a good way down the list of priorities and potentially might never be developed if East Hampshire finds enough other sites.Ó

He concluded: ÒIf I had to make a guess about why this application is in now, it is because of Ramshill and the developers want to put it up against Ramshill and have the two compared together.Ó

East Hampshire district councillors were due to meet last night (Thursday) to debate the Causeway application.

Officers were recommending that it should be refused.