There are calls for more homes to be built in the South Downs National Park to try and maintain its thriving towns and villages.

Last week, East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) met to discuss the South Downs National Park Authority’s local plan, which outlines future development – but councillors are trying to persuade bosses to build more houses.

The EHDC cabinet members approved a response in a letter outlining the reasons why the national park authority should consider building more houses in villages and larger places like Petersfield, Liphook and Liss to help maintain their thriving communities. It said if it was not listened to, in the end, the council would have to reject the SDNP local plan review.

While large swathes of the national park are within EHDC’s borders, the national park authority manages planning so prepares its own local plan which will cover 2028 to 2042.

The council said it was the national park authority’s duty to “seek to foster the economic and social wellbeing of the local communities”, as well as ”to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area”.

South Downs National Park Authority’s local plan review (Regulation 18) is currently in public consultation so residents can have their say by March 17 about how many homes should be built inside it.

The government sets housing targets for all local authorities and last December, increased the number of houses East Hampshire must build each year from 575 to 1,142, a 98 per cent increase.

The increase is due to the Labour government’s election promise of wanting to build 1.5 million homes over the next five years.

In the meeting, Councillor Angela Glass (Con, Bramshott and Liphook) said that the national park needed 250 new homes per year but it was planning only 86.

In terms of land mass, 57 per cent of East Hampshire is within the national park and it has a total of 26 per cent of all homes.

The council’s response said 113,000 people live in the national park so it had a high population compared to others such as the Lake District.

It said sustainable, vital places like Petersfield, Liphook and Liss should be targeted with more growth to protect and continue to provide for their social and economic wellbeing.

The document said that the national park authority can look at providing new homes for young families to maintain schools such as Liss primary with its falling student numbers. At present, only a 60-bed care home is allocated to be built.

The officer’s report said EHDC is concerned that the low number of homes proposed is likely to have consequences on the Local Plan Review’s aim and objectives to conserve and enhance the villages and market towns; compromising the economic wellbeing of the national park.

It also means people being forced to move just outside the national park area to find homes and jobs. Putting pressure on housing just outside the park and communities inside the park may be impacted socio-economically.

The council said: “Limiting growth could stagnate growth in these villages, increasing the likelihood of limiting remaining facilities and services from functioning. The same is more acute in larger settlements, such as Petersfield, Liphook and Liss, with limited growth having potential implications on the vitality and viability of centres.

It would like the national park authority to identify more sites within its local plan, and reconsider some it has already rejected, especially in areas like Petersfield, Liphook and Liss with numerous facilities, services and near to bus and train links.

National planning policies also require East Hampshire to attempt to accommodate housing from the national park and other neighbouring planning authorities that cannot meet their own targets.