A MEETING to promote next month’s Petersfield Neighbourhood Plan referendum heard that, if the plan was rejected, it was likely that developers would bid to build on “every bit of spare land in the town”.

The draft plan (PNP) provides guidelines for most aspects of the town’s future development, but its main task is setting out the land on which a ‘minimum’ of 700 houses the government says must be built in Petersfield.

But critics who went to the meeting, held at East Hampshire District Council offices in Penns Place, claimed the plan wasn’t offering cast iron protection against more estates, once the new homes are finished.

Moira Goodsir, of The Causeway, said: “What guarantee do we have that the government won’t then want more houses here?

“There have in the past been previous U-turns on housing policy.

“I don’t share the view that the government will honour the PNP.”

Head of the South Downs National Park Authority’s planning department, Tim Slaney, said: “I can’t give cast iron guarantees about the future.

“But locally the PNP will carry the maximum weight in planning terms.”

One of the main bones of contention was the expected increase in cars using The Causeway once estates being built on land alongside it were finished.

Added to this were concerns about proposals for another 270 homes either side of the town’s main through road.

The sceptics said no allowance had been made for the extra traffic generated by the new builds, with the biggest likely to be an estate of around 200 homes on land at Causeway Farm, off The Causeway.

One angry Causeway resident said: “We have done our own traffic count, and putting more traffic on to The Causeway can’t be safe.”

However, Mr Slaney assured her that Hampshire County Council’s highways department had studied the road and said it could cope with the cars from the 400 (approximately) new homes that would be using it.

Also criticised was the low number of affordable homes the PNP was recommending should be built.

Former Petersfield councillor and mayor John Crowhurst said: “Petersfield is notorious for the high cost of accommodation.

“Unless more affordable housing is provided, teachers, medical staff, police officers, council staff as well as ordinary people won’t be able to afford to live.

“This will create a very unsatisfactory demographic situation, with fewer and fewer young people living here.”

In reply the PNP panel admitted there was a problem, but insisted it was due to government policy, which said that affordable homes should be incorporated in new estates by the developers.

Members insisted at least 40 per cent of each estate would be affordable.

The Yes/No residents’ referendum on accepting the Petersfield Neighbourhood Plan is due to take place on Thursday, November 19.

For more details, visit the website www.petersfieldsplan.co.uk