Sub Regional Policy Advice to SEERA

Statement of Consultation

Options for district-level housebuilding figures in Hampshire

Alison Quant

Director of Environment

Hampshire County Council

December 2005

CONTENTS

1. Introduction

2. The Consultation process

3. The Overall response

4. Responses relating to Central Hampshire and New Forest

5. Appendices

Appendices

Appendix 1 - `Where Shall We Live' consultation document (attached separately)

Appendix 2 - Special edition of `Hampshire Now' (website link)

Appendix 3 - Press releases

Appendix 4 - Hampshire County Council Leader's letter to the media

Appendix 5 - Parish/Town Council Briefing Seminar Summary

Appendix 6 - Social and Environmental Groups Briefing Seminar

Summary

Appendix 7 - Business Breakfast, Winchester - Summary

Appendix 8 - Business Breakfast, Fareham - Summary

Appendix 9 - Complementary District Activities/Initiatives

Appendix 10 - Stakeholder Preferences (Where Shall We Live)

Appendix 11 - Resident Preferences (Hampshire Now)

Appendix 12 - Most frequently made comments by Stakeholders

Appendix 13 - Most frequently made comments by Residents

1. Introduction

1.1 This Statement of Consultation explains the process and results of the public consultation undertaken in association with the preparation of District-level housebuilding figures for the Central Hampshire and New Forest sub-area. It has been prepared at the request of the Regional Assembly to accompany the submission of the proposed housing figures.

1.2 This Statement has been drawn up by Hampshire County Council which also formulated the options on which public consultation took place during September and October 2005 by Hampshire County Council. The options were drawn up in consultation with the five Borough and District Councils in the sub-area: Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council, East Hampshire District Council, New Forest District Council, Test Valley Borough Council and Winchester City Council, who also assisted with the public consultation.

2. The consultation process

2.1 Public consultation in Hampshire was undertaken in accordance with the principles set out in the document `District-level housing distributions: Joint approach to Public Consultation' agreed between the Regional Assembly and the South East Counties in July 2005. That agreement stated that for practical reasons, the consultation would be undertaken on the basis of geographical county areas.

2.2 The consultation in Hampshire took place between 5 September and 21 October 2005 - a period of seven weeks. Options were prepared for each of the three parts of the county, which offered genuinely different choices. Hampshire County Council and the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire did not indicate any preference between the Options. The Options for the three sub-areas of Hampshire - North Hampshire, South Hampshire, and Central Hampshire & New Forest - were set in a single document called `Where Shall We Live?' (Appendix 1). This was targeted at stakeholders. In addition a special edition of the County Council's residents magazine `Hampshire Now' (Appendix 2), exclusively dealing with this topic, was distributed to homes across the County Council's area. This was shorter than `Where shall we live' and was designed specifically for residents.

2.3 About 5,000 copies of `Where Shall We Live' were distributed across Hampshire, including Portsmouth and Southampton. This is an approximate estimate as bulk supplies were provided to the city and District councils for local distribution and it is not certain how many they sent on to external bodies. Copies were sent to organisations including statutory bodies, all District, parish and town councils, businesses, developers and environmental groups, and to those individuals who requested a copy. A reference copy was placed in each public library.

2.4 The special edition of `Hampshire Now' was distributed to around 460,000 homes across the County Council's area. It was known that a copy would not reach every home because of distribution difficulties in a few local areas, so steps were taken to promote the consultation through making copies available in public libraries, citizen advice bureaus, museums, GP surgeries, petrol stations and local shops. A bulk supply was also sent to every parish council with the offer of more if needed. Additionally, the questionnaire was put on the County Council's website together with other background information to the consultation.

2.5 Use was also made of the media to make people aware of the consultation. Three press releases (Appendix 3) were issued to media across Hampshire - one in July 2005 announcing that consultation would be taking place later in the year; one to coincide with the start of the consultation in early September; and one when `Hampshire Now' was published. A letter from the County Council's Leader (Appendix 4) was sent to all media towards the end of the consultation in response to concerns that some residents had not received their copy of `Hampshire Now'. The letter urged residents to contact the County Council if they had not had their copy. An email was sent to the media on the last week of the consultation to remind the public of the October 21 deadline. The press releases issued resulted in a high level of media interest. There were articles in the majority of the local press, including some large feature pieces. It is more difficult to gain coverage of something as complex as the District housing allocations on broadcast, but five radio interviews were given.

2.6 Two briefing meetings were held - one for parish/town councils and one for social and environmental groups. These took place soon after the start of the consultation period to provide clarification and assist organizations in making their responses. They were attended by 42 and 31 organizations respectively; the points raised are summarized in appendices 5 and 6.

2.7 Two business breakfasts were arranged for business people/ organisations; one in Winchester organised by the Hampshire Economic Partnership and Hampshire County Council and one near Fareham organised by the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire. (A similar event arranged for Basingstoke had to be cancelled due to a poor response from business people; those who had accepted the invitation were encouraged to attend the Winchester event instead.) These two events were attended by 45 and 36 delegates respectively. Appendices 7 and 8 summarise the discussions at these events.

2.8 Information was also made available on the web and a dedicated telephone helpline was open during normal office hours (with a voicemail at other times). The helpline dealt with 117 telephone calls during the consultation period. Most callers were requesting further copies of the `Where Shall We Live' document (41%), followed by those questioning the legitimacy of the consultation document (15%) and others wishing to clarify which sub-region their locality was in (13%). The remaining calls were questions on a wide range of issues.

2.9 In addition, District councils also undertook their own complementary activities/initiatives to further raise awareness and encourage responses, ranging from posting information on their web sites to holding local public meetings. These are set out in appendix 9.

2.10 In addition to the formal consultation, the nominated representatives of the Assembly's social, economic and environmental partners were invited to technical workshops/meetings which formulated the consultation Options for consideration by joint Member steering groups. After the consultation, they were invited to meetings which considered the consultation responses.

3. Overall response

3.1 The reply-paid questionnaire in the `Where shall we live' document asked stakeholders to tick boxes to indicate their preference between the Options and invited them to set out any other Options or comments in a box on the form. A few respondents chose to send their preferences and comments in a letter. Responses were received from 969 stakeholders; this represents a 20% response rate. The respondents included all Hampshire District councils, 92 parish and town councils, 104 development interests, 131 environmental/amenity/ social groups, and 631 individuals. The preferences expressed in respect of the Central Hampshire and New Forest sub-area are summarised in the next chapter.

3.2 The additional comments made by stakeholders were wide ranging and sometimes conflicting. The most frequently made comments were:

_ Concern over the inadequate state of current transport and other infrastructure (20%),

_ Scepticism about whether such infrastructure improvements can be delivered (14%),

_ Criticism of the consultation process and that people should have been involved at an earlier stage (13%),

_ Developing brownfield sites in preference to greenfield land is the key to protecting the open countryside and environmentally important sites (5%),

_ Type of dwellings built must match the housing needs of the area - affordable housing in some localities, but also larger properties in others (3%),

_ Complaints about the unelected nature of the Regional Assembly and that it is dictating policies down to the local level (3%),

_ Concern over high density development and the loss of open/amenity space resulting from infilling and brownfield development (2%),

_ Feelings that the Government must contribute to infrastructure improvements to complement the housebuilding proposed (1%).

See Appendix 12 for more detail on these and other comments received.

3.3 7,380 Hampshire residents returned the questionnaire from the special edition of `Hampshire Now'. This is around 1.5 per cent of the number distributed. 55 per cent of those who responded are men; by comparison, 48 per cent of the total population of the County Council's area is male. The vast majority of the respondents are aged 45 and over: 82 per cent compared to 54 per cent of the County's total population. 15% of the responses received were from North Hampshire residents, 27% from Central Hampshire residents and 49% from South Hampshire Residents. Figure 1 shows what percentage of 7,380 responses, were received from residents of each District.

Figure 1: Residents responses by District compared to actual population

3.4 The number of replies from each District broadly mirrors the population split amongst Districts. So, although the questionnaire results are not exactly representative of the total population, the number of respondents is large - over 7,000 - and the data represents the best available indication of local residents' views. The preferences expressed in relation to the Options for Central Hampshire and the New Forest, are set out in the next chapter.

3.5 Many of the additional comments which residents express echo those of the stakeholders. The most frequently made comments were:

_ do not build without infrastructure improvements (11 per cent),

_ there is already road congestion/gridlock (10 per cent),

_ do not build on greenfield land (7 per cent),

_ do not build in this area (7 per cent),

_ leave our countryside alone (6 per cent),

_ schools already stretched/no provision for new schools (6 per cent),

_ developments require good transport links (6 per cent).

3.6 In summary, these comments indicate concern about the amount of new development and its impact on the countryside/greenfields, and that infrastructure is already over-stretched and must be improved if new development is to be accommodated.

See Appendix 13 for more detail on these and other comments received.

4. Responses relating to Central Hampshire and New Forest

4.1 Respondents were asked: 16,000 new homes are proposed for Central Hampshire and New Forest over the next twenty years. Around 14,000 of these are expected to be built on sites already earmarked for housing and on other sites within towns. Five options are being considered for locating the remaining 2,000 or so new homes., which do you prefer?

Option 1 - Winchester, Option 2 - Andover, Option 3 - Whitehill/ Bordon (land currently occupied by the Ministry of Defence), Option 4 - Some at Andover and some at Whitehill/Bordon, Option 5 - Shared amongst all the above & other main settlements in the area or Option 6 - Don't know/note sure.

District Councils Preferences

4.2 The District Councils did not confine themselves to indicating a single preferred option but stated whether they supported or opposed each of the five options. All the districts who expressed an opinion, except East Hampshire, support or would be content with Option 5 (additional housing spread between all the districts).

4.3 East Hampshire District Council support Options 1 and 2 (development in Winchester or Andover) and object to the other Options (Options 1 and 2 give East Hampshire the lowest housing requirement).

4.4 Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council support a housing figure of 30 dwellings per annum (Option 5).

4.5 New Forest District Council has no strong preference between the Options.

4.6 Hart District Council made no comments on the Options for Central Hampshire and New Forest.

4.7 Test Valley Borough Council support the continued development of Andover and Options 4 and 5 (additional development split between Andover and Bordon/ Whitehill or development spread between all the Districts). It wishes to reserve its position on Option 2 (additional development at Andover) until it has considered the Inspector's Report on the Local Plan Inquiry.

4.8 Winchester prefers Option 5 but suggests that the Option should be clarified so that it refers to spreading the allocation amongst the Districts involved (not necessarily in the locations listed in Options 1-4).

4.9 East Hampshire District Council objects to the Options which involve development at Bordon/Whitehill because there is no certainty, at this stage, that the land will become available for development. A decision on the future of Defence training in Bordon will not be made until mid 2006. It considers that the South East Plan should recognise the possible development opportunities in the town but any housing figures should be ring fenced for provision in and around the town only. It considers that if the land does not come forward at Bordon then neither the District or other Central Hampshire authorities should be expected to make up the shortfall. East Hampshire District Council also requests that further work is carried out to identify a housing figure for the South Downs National Park.

Key Stakeholders Preferences

4.10 The Highways Agency do not wish to express particular support for any of the Options, but they would expect that the impacts of all the Options upon the trunk road network will be assessed.

4.11 Thames Water believe that Bordon Sewage Treatment Works can accommodate the wastewater flows from an additional 400 dwellings, but any amount above this would require detailed investigation. Consequently, the Options that direct less development to Whitehill and Bordon are more likely to be within the environmental capacity of the receiving watercourse, and require less upgrade/development of the Bordon Sewage Treatment Works.

4.12 English Nature stress the importance of securing the investment in infrastructure prior to development under any of the Options for Central Hampshire and the New Forest, however they are also very sceptical whether the size of development proposed under any of the Options is large enough to attract the level of investment needed.

4.13 The Home Builders Federation is concerned that the numbers for this area are too low; the requirement to provide for housing needs in Winchester, Andover and Petersfield can only be met by a higher overall figure with accompanied infrastructure commitments.

4.14 The Whitehill / Bordon Opportunity Steering Group is especially keen to see any figure for the Whitehill and Bordon area 'ring-fenced', owing to the uncertainty over whether and/or when the Ministry of Defence will pull out of the locality (otherwise the 2,000 homes would have to be spread across the rest of Central Hampshire, placing undue pressure on East Hampshire).

4.15 The Hampshire Greenfield Alliance is more supportive of spreading a small number of houses between villages and settlements across the area, with key amenities ensured in each locality.

4.16 The Campaign to Protect Rural England feel that most if not all of the future growth allocated to this sub-region can be accommodated on brownfield land. It also feels that the Whitehill/Bordon opportunity should be grasped, particularly as all the alternative options involve development on greenfields. However, It also believes that any allocation to this location should be `ring fenced' so that if the Ministry of Defence changes its plans, the allocation will not be given to the rest of East Hampshire which is largely covered by national countryside designations. Therefore, any Whitehill/Bordon allocation should be accompanied by a reserve site allocation at Andover, they say.

4.17 The Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust feel that under Option 1, if Barton Farm was to be developed, then this must be part of a comprehensive series of investments securing or enhancing a broad corridor of land centred on the Itchen Valley for a range of sustainable development objectives. It points out that it has already made objections to the proposed Major Development Areas at Andover as these are failing to deliver the range of sustainable development objectives required under the Structure Plan's policy MDA1. The Trust feel that greenfield development at Bordon/Whitehill under Options 3 and 4 is unlikely to be sustainable, and therefore are objected to.

Option 1

4.18 The Environment Agency and English Nature both see the main area of concern for this Option as water availability and quality, and the potential impacts on the River Itchen SAC and SSSI. It is vitally important under this scenario that investment is secured to enable the necessary infrastructure to be implemented in advance of construction to safeguard the River Itchen. The occurrence of groundwater flooding in this area is also a concern.

Option 2

4.19 The Environment Agency sees the main area of concern for this Option as infrastructure provision in terms of water quality. Issues may be more localised to particular Sewage Treatment Works so the effects are hard to judge using District level housing figures, but of concern are the growth levels above existing allocations around the locations of Andover, Stockbridge, Kings Sombourne, Chilbolton and Harestock.

Option 3

4.20 English Nature advises the County Council to consider the provision of suitable alternative open space when assessing the suitability of Whitehill/Bordon to accommodate 2,000 new homes. It is also aware that there is a high degree of uncertainty relating to the disposal of Ministry of Defence land at Whitehill/Bordon. English Nature therefore consider it unwise for the South East Plan to rely on the release of such land within the plan period, and furthermore do not support this Option until there is certainty regarding the timing of release.

Option 4

4.21 English Nature believe that although it may appear that a smaller amount of development at Whitehill/Bordon might result in a reduced impact on the surrounding sites of high ecological value (SPA and SACs), the level of development proposed under Option 4 might be insufficient to generate the necessary green infrastructure which would absorb recreation pressure away from the SPA and SACs. Therefore English Nature do not support Option 4.

Option 5

4.22 English Nature reiterate its comments relating to water quality and quantity in the River Itchen SAC and advise HCC to take this into account when considering development near Winchester under Option 5.

Overall Stakeholder Preferences

4.23 Responses on the Central Hampshire and New Forest Options were received from 631 stakeholders comprising; 61 Parish and Town councils, 43 development interests, 66 environmental/amenity/social groups, and 461 individuals. Overall, 37% of respondents who made a preference chose Whitehill/Bordon as the location for most of the housing, followed by the Option to spread housing amongst other main settlements. The remaining responses were split fairly equally between identifying Andover or Winchester as preferred Options as can be seen from Figure 2.

Figure 2: Stakeholder Preferences - Central Hampshire and New Forest Options

Residents Preferences

4.24 The Option which received most support amongst residents countywide was to locate the 2,000 homes at Whitehill/Bordon (30% of the overall response), followed by a spread of homes between the main settlements in Central Hampshire and New Forest (22%). Support is even higher amongst Central Hampshire and New Forest residents (34%), followed by a share of all locations across the main settlements. There is less support for the 2,000 homes to go specifically to Winchester or Andover as can be seen from Figure 3.

Figure 3: Residents Preferences -Central Hampshire and New Forest Options

Alternative options suggested

4.25 15 respondents argued that development should be encouraged to other parts of the country, especially the north, whilst a number of respondents put forward other possible locations for development. 5 respondents want a more extensive use of Ministry of Defence sites, such as Worthy Down and Bushfield Camp, whilst 4 respondents and 2 from North Hampshire argue for the development around Micheldever Station. There was also mention of the Cemex site at Fordingbridge and the ASDA store site and the old Kenning/Sixt site at Andover.

4.26 Sipson Gray Limited suggest that development in East Hampshire should be centred around the A3 and towards Liphook, rather than at Bordon. The South East Consortium back the proposals for development at Micheldever Station as well as focussing growth on existing settlements like Andover. White Young Green Planning on behalf of Mr Robert Hickman CBE, promote urban extensions and large scale developments in general but in particular the MDAs around Andover. The same firm also favour large urban extensions, especially at Alton and Petersfield on the behalf of 5 clients.

4.27 Taylor Woodrow suggest that more development should be encouraged in the Central Hampshire part of Hart District as well as increasing development at Winchester through the release of an MDA. Cemex UK Materials Limited promote the attractiveness of the Cemex site in Fordingbridge, whilst Peel Investments North suggest a site of 1,650 dwellings on their land south of Andover, near the urban area of Bere Hill.

4.28 Boyer Planning on behalf of George Wimpey and Taylor Woodrow suggest an MDA on their clients land East of Icknield Way at Andover, which has already been allocated. They suggest that this area could have its capacity increased. Cala Homes (South) advocate the release of Winchester City North MDA whilst Redrow Homes (Southern) also suggest more housing provision in Winchester at sites already identified in the Local Plan.

Stakeholders other comments

4.29 Other stakeholders, individuals and development interests responding to the consultation hold a number of concerns at how the figures have been arrived at, and the assumptions made whilst compiling them. Many individuals feel that too much is being demanded of Hampshire, which contrasts markedly with the developers & consultants who feel that the housing figures are not high enough. However they do agree on the view that Options are too limited, and a more flexible approach might be more realistic.

4.30 The biggest issue to come through is the concern at the inadequacy of existing infrastructure, let alone the consequences of any increase in development (this includes worries with public services, the capacity of water supplies & treatment, and other vital utilities). This concern is held predominantly by individuals and parish/town councils, and less so by developers. 73 respondents were especially concerned about infrastructure and that development must be preceded by the provision of infrastructure (this is reflected in arguments for development based around existing transport networks, and expanding existing settlements that already have good utility services).

4.31 A comment by a number of developers and consultants has been made towards the poor assumptions regarding economic development, in particular the ability of the proposed numbers to address the social or economic requirements of a growing region. 3 developers and consultants are of the view that all existing reserve housing provision in Hampshire should be included in the housing supply figures.

4.32 A few people are adamant that Hampshire as well as the South East overall is overcrowded and cannot take any more growth. The suggestion to concentrate new development in other parts of England (e.g. northern regions) is a common theme in those responses.

4.33 27 responses from across the categories call for brownfield development ahead of any greenfield releases, with additional calls for environmental protection (both natural and historic). Although there was support for high density housing and its contribution to minimising land take, this is countered by a smaller number who regard high density housing as something which leads to a lower quality of life (as well as concerns at excessive infilling policies, and contaminated land issues). The opportunity to renovate existing housing stock was also mentioned as a further Option by individuals.

4.34 The need to clear the shortfall in affordable housing is where all groups were in absolute agreement, with a particular emphasis on matching local housing needs to the particular locality (e.g. provision for the elderly, village housing, and key workers).

4.35 The few responses regarding the New Forest reflected support for there only being provision for local housing need, but with it the concern that peripheral towns would be put under pressure to accept housing (because of limited development within the National Park).

4.36 Building on flood plains was firmly rejected by a few individuals, and where a comment was received on greenfield sites there is broad opposition to building on them. The only instance where it may be acceptable is when the provision through brownfield sites proves over-optimistic or where we build on low quality agricultural land.

4.37 A minority of responses also pointed out that strategic gaps were important, but at the same time there was specific support for enhancing the viability of small towns and rural villages by allowing appropriate development. It is a shared view across the categories that villages and towns need to receive some housing to sustain their vitality and viability in future.

4.38 16 of the responses were critical about the consultation process and/or the structure of the consultation document. 14 others from all categories welcomed the opportunity for consultation, but felt that they did not have sufficient information available to make a proper judgement.

4.39 There is a strong resistance from a minority of the respondents towards the South East Plan and the Regional Assembly; namely in criticism about housing figures being imposed on Hampshire from an unelected body, and to what extent that body is accountable. The lack of a clear sustainability appraisal prior to these figures was also the subject of several comments.

4.40 Of those who made additional comments, individuals, parish councils and environmental groups were against large-scale development at Winchester (Barton Farm), whilst developers and consultants were supportive of this Option.

4.41 Conversely, the individuals and parish councils who were supportive of growth at Bordon/Whitehill were countered by developers and consultants who are of the opinion that it is not a sustainable location. A number of responses requested that Whitehill/Bordon be treated as a special case, in view of the fact that the MoD's withdrawal will not be known until mid to late 2006. The idea of spreading development around is supported by a few in view of its reduced local impact.

4.42 Written comments included those who felt that the six Options in the consultation document were not sufficient, and a number were concerned that MoD sites should be pushed forward for housing development. Other locations were suggested, including Micheldever, Liss and Alton. There was particular support for the opportunity to spread development across all the Options if MoD land was not forthcoming.

4.43 Developers and consultants are of the opinion that Central Hampshire

and New Forest can deliver more than is being asked of it.

Residents Comments

4.44 There is a clear request that any development be accompanied by improvements in infrastructure, and there is a view that the county is already overcrowded (especially noted in the congested transport system). The ability of water supplies and treatment systems to cope is questioned, while protection of greenfield land is a common worry.

4.45 In tandem with these comments is the request for the more efficient use of brownfield sites. Concern is expressed at the levels of housing near to where people currently live, and the requirement for growth is questioned by some.

4.46 Affordable housing and the availability of housing for local people is high on the list, as are calls for the provision of further amenities and facilities; these include school provision, sports facilities and health services like hospitals and clinics.

5. Appendices

Appendix 1 - `Where Shall We Live' consultation document (attached separately)

Appendix 2 - Special edition of `Hampshire Now' (website link)

Appendix 3 - Press releases

Appendix 4 - Hampshire County Council Leader's letter to the media

Appendix 5 - Parish/Town Council Briefing Seminar Summary

Appendix 6 - Social and Environmental Groups Briefing Seminar

Summary

Appendix 7 - Business Breakfast, Winchester - Summary

Appendix 8 - Business Breakfast, Fareham - Summary

Appendix 9 - Complementary District Activities/Initiatives

Appendix 10 - Stakeholder Preferences (Where Shall We Live)

Appendix 11 - Resident Preferences (Hampshire Now)

Appendix 12 - Most frequently made comments by Stakeholders

Appendix 13 - Most frequently made comments by Residents

Appendix 2 - Special edition of `Hampshire Now' (website link)

There was not a full electronic version (pdf) produced of the Special `Hampshire Now', however, as well as the hard copy, it was available to view on line:

Appendix 3 - Press Releases

Press Release: 27/07/2005

PR 2255

COUNTY COUNCIL ASKED TO CARVE UP AND CONSULT ON HOUSING FIGURES

How should the 122,000 new homes proposed for Hampshire (including Portsmouth and Southampton) over the next 20 years be divided up on a more local level? Hampshire County Council is to consult residents on a number of Options later this year.

The South East Regional Assembly (SEERA) has tasked the County Council and two unitary councils (principal authorities) with dividing up the South East Plan housing allocation of 6,100 homes per year at District level. Working with all the District councils, the principal authorities have come up with a number of Options on how the housing could be distributed. These proposals are to form the basis of a single consultation document.

The consultation document will be sent to statutory consultees, all parish and town councils and around 1,000 organisations and individuals who have asked to be kept informed about the South East Plan. Copies will also be available in public libraries and information centres.

Although the consultation document will not be sent to every household, residents in the County Council's administrative area will receive a special edition of `Hampshire Now' magazine summarising the key proposals and giving the opportunity to feedback any comments. In addition the County Council is proposing to run seminars for particular groups such as businesses and the Hampshire Town and Parish Council Association, and dedicate pages on its website.

The consultation will be for a seven week period beginning early September and finishing towards the end of October. The chosen Options will then be forward to SEERA in December.

Leader of Hampshire County Council, Councillor Ken Thornber, said: "The County Council has made every effort to ensure that residents are aware of the Regional Assembly's South East Plan and what it could mean for them. We have already carried out a number of consultations to find out views on the over arching housing figures for the region, and to what extent people felt growth could be accommodated in the county. This was fed back to the Assembly, who have decided on a figure of 28.900 new homes for the South East each year including 6,100 in Hampshire.

This is only slightly higher than the levels in the current Regional Planning Guidance, but it is still a challenging task to allocate this amount of development, to specific areas within the county. More housing, whether in your local area or not, will affect everyone as it will have an impact on our roads, transport systems, schools, utilities, and health and community facilities. We have constantly told SEERA and the Government that these additional needs must be provided for by new infrastructure.

"When the consultation begins on District housing figures it is important that everyone has their say and I would urge all residents, businesses and organisations to make their views known."

Press Release: 06/09/2005

PR 2314

WHERE SHOULD NEW HOUSES IN HAMPSHIRE BE BUILT?

Now is the time to have your say on where new housebuilding should take place in Hampshire over the next 20 years.

The amount of house building in Hampshire including Portsmouth and Southampton has been set at 6,100 new houses a year by the South East Regional Assembly (SEERA) - 4,000 per year will be in South Hampshire, 1,300 a year in North Hampshire and 800 a year in Central Hampshire and New Forest. SEERA has asked Hampshire County Council along with the two unitary councils of Southampton and Portsmouth to advise how this should be shared out at a more local level.

The councils have produced a number of Options for where new development might take place and are asking individuals and organisations for their views. The Options are set out in a consultation document which can be seen in public libraries and council information centres. The document has also been sent to all parish and town councils and around 1,000 organisations and individuals who are required to be consulted, or who have asked to be kept informed about the South East Plan.

The County Council will be sending its residents a special edition of `Hampshire Now' magazine summarising the key issues and Options, and giving them the opportunity to comment. In addition, seminars have been arranged for groups such as parish and town councils.

The consultation will run for a seven week period until Friday 21 October. The views received will be carefully considered before the figures for each District are decided on and this advice is sent to SEERA in December.

Leader of Hampshire County Council, Councillor Ken Thornber, said: "The County Council believes that people who live and work in Hampshire should have the chance to shape the future of their county. We launched the Holding out for Hampshire campaign earlier this year to ensure that residents understood what the plan meant for their county and to encourage them to make their views known. We had an overwhelming response to our Hampshire Now Special questionnaire (a record 15,000 replies) which highlighted the importance of the quality of life we enjoy in Hampshire.

"Residents told us that they accepted there needed to be some growth and development but that it must be managed in a controlled and sustainable way. They said there should be new housing for local people but that investment in roads, transport, water and sewerage systems, schools, health and community facilities would be vital to support our communities. We have told SEERA and the Government that we want clear guarantees of investment - by the public and private sector together - in the infrastructure needed to support growth.

"We are now asking for views on where the new housing should go. It is important that everyone has a proper say on these important and long term future developments."

Press Release: 14/09/2005

PR 2326

MAKE SURE YOU HAVE YOUR SAY ON HOUSING - LOOK OUT FOR HAMPSHIRE NOW

Hampshire County Council's consultation on where future house building should be focussed is now being delivered to households across the county.

Residents should be on the look out for their special edition of Hampshire Now magazine which outlines the Options for where new development might take place over the next 20 years.

The magazine explains that the amount of house building in Hampshire including Portsmouth and Southampton has been set at 6,100 new houses a year by the South East Regional Assembly (SEERA) - 4,000 per year will be in South Hampshire, 1,300 a year in North Hampshire and 800 a year in Central Hampshire and New Forest. It includes details on the Options for dividing the housing up on a more local level and a questionnaire to fill in and return by 21 October.

Leader of Hampshire County Council, Councillor Ken Thornber, said: "The South East Plan will affect the future of this county and all its residents, so it is vital that everyone has their say on where they think the right place is for new development.

"We saw a record response to our first survey on the South East Plan and I hope we will see even more this time round. All the views we receive will be taken into account before we put a preferred Option to SEERA.

"I would urge all residents to look out for their copy of our Hampshire Now special or log on to our website and make their views known!"

Further information on the South East Plan can be found at www.hants.gov.uk/southeastplan.

Appendix 4 - Hampshire County Council Leader's Letter to the Media

Dear Sir

Where should the Houses go?

I am writing to encourage your readers to respond to the questionnaire about new housing which Hampshire County Council is sending out to its residents and council tax payers with a special edition of its the Hampshire Now magazine.

For the record, Hampshire County Council is no longer the strategic planning authority for the county. The government has given the responsibility for regional planning for the South East to the unelected South-East England Regional Assembly (SEERA). It is SEERA that has set the proposed number of houses at 122,000 over 20 years in Hampshire and it is this body that now requires us to consult the public on the question of where the additional housing should go. In short, the aim of the questionnaire is to establish the broad principles of where you would prefer the new houses to be sited rather than whether you want them at all.

Hampshire County Council's position on this is uncompromising and quite clear. Earlier this year we launched our campaign `Holding out for Hampshire' which centred on holding out for the quality of life that you hold dear. You wrote to us in your thousands and we used your replies to inform our response to SEERA. An essential was that we were holding out for a commitment from government that any development, had to be accompanied by funding for the vital roads, transport systems, water supplies, schools, health and other community facilities necessary for your quality of life.

Working alongside the other councils in Hampshire we have now been asked to advise how the new homes should be divided up on a more local level. To do this we need to gauge your preferences on where the houses should go. Should they be built near existing centres of population, concentrated in new developments, sited on previously used land, placed on some greenfield land or more evenly distributed in your area as a whole?

In designing the questionnaire we have left space for your comments so you can write other Options or voice opinions that you strongly hold. Rest assured, Hampshire County Council wants to hear from you so that we can go back to SEERA armed with your responses.

Please complete your Hampshire Now Special questionnaire by Friday 21 October. If you still have not received your copy you can request one by phoning us on 0800 028 0888 or fill in the on-line questionnaire at www.hants.gov.uk/southeastplan <http://www.hants.gov.uk/southeastplan>. Your comments will be analysed along with the structured questions and presented to the Cabinet and Full County Council later this year, before being submitted to SEERA in December 2005.

We look forward to hearing from you,

Yours sincerely

Ken Thornber

Leader

Appendix 5 - Parish/Town Council Briefing Seminar Summary

Consultation meeting for Town and Parish Councils

Winchester Guildhall, 8^th September 2005

The seminar was attended by 42 organisations.

This note lists the questions posed at this seminar in relation to the consultation document `Where shall we live?' (with the name of the person/council who asked the question if given) and summarises the response given by the Panel; Alison Quant, Director of the Environment, Hampshire County Council, Stuart Jarvis, Deputy Director of the Environment, Hampshire County Council and Simon Eden, Chief Executive, Winchester City Council.

Questions raised:

The South East Plan and Local Plans

Q. How do parish councils reconcile two sets of targets: the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) housing requirements [for the South East Plan] and the Local Plan allocation figures in the Inspectors report and the two separate planning processes?

A. There are two separate planning processes occurring; the Local Plan process is progressing on the basis of existing policies for the short-medium term; the South East Plan figures cover the next 20 years and represent a change from the existing strategy. For the moment, the focus is on the Local Plan process, however the South East Plan is imminent and will supersede the Local Plan figures. In most cases, the current allocations will carry through to the new system, in a few cases allocations may have to be reviewed.

Q. The Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan runs from 2006-2016 and a public inquiry is currently under way. It includes housing figures substantially less than the South East Plan figures - will this Local Plan be superseded?

A. The Local Plan will be adopted before the South East Plan becomes statutory guidance. It is unlikely that the Local Plan will be amended but the next review might be triggered early if the new figures in the South East Plan are substantially different. The final version of the South East Plan, which covers a longer time period than Local Plans, is expected around 2008.

Split Districts

Q. What will be the process for the District councils split between two areas?

A. One Local Development Framework will be produced for each District; recognising that some Districts are split between two areas.

Q. How will the targets be presented for Districts split between two sub regions?

A. There will be a total figure for the District, split between the two areas.

Consultation

Q. Will a consultation response from a parish council carry more weight than responses from individuals?

A. The consultation is not a poll; we are seeking to gain a balance of views to enable us to report the opinions of different groups such as parish councils, members of the public etc. The parish view is important and will be reported separately to individuals views. In addition to the `Where shall we live' document, the consultation will include a special production of Hampshire Now, distributed to households in Hampshire (but not in Southampton and Portsmouth) and containing a questionnaire to be returned.

Housing Options

Q. What would happen if Whitehill/Bordon was the chosen Option in the Plan for the Central Hampshire and New Forest area and it didn't come forward? Would that housing go somewhere else?

A. The South East Plan will include District housing totals; if the figure set for East Hampshire included development at Whitehill/Bordon but that did not materialise, then East Hampshire would need to find other sites. However the authorities in Central Hampshire and the New Forest have been working closely together on the distribution of housing in the area. It is likely therefore that if this Option was chosen and could not go forward, the local authorities would take the opportunity of the first review of the plan to consider how this housing could be accommodated across the wider area.

Q. It was stated that the Option of developing Barton Farm would release pressure on smaller sites. I had not heard of any formal announcement advising developers against knocking down bungalows and replacing them with new development? I am concerned that Districts are not fighting against the development of windfall sites outside of local plans.

A. This issue is not black and white, however, by developing large sites this may enable local authorities to take a stronger line in resisting the sort of development mentioned and more likely to win a case on appeal. At the moment it is difficult to fight against these developments in front of planning inspectors if rejecting housing developments could result in Districts not meeting their own housing targets.

Housing numbers

Q. Where is the pressure for housing coming from - is it immigration or people moving from urban to rural areas?

A. Most of the housing pressure comes from people who are already resident here and is due to demographic reasons, for example people living longer and a greater incidence of divorce. The migration component is continued at the same rate as in the most recent past.

The approach of PUSH has however been to look at the link between employment and housing, factoring in changes in productivity etc, to assess the amount of labour and then finally the housing required.

Q. What effect will the National Parks have on housing numbers? Will there be a buffer between the South Downs National Park and South Hampshire?

A. The National Park areas are currently protected in the planning system and this already affects the planning policies and the nature of development in these areas, therefore their designation will not impinge on housing numbers. The numbers were not decided directly with reference to the parks but reflect the general approach to protect such areas. In addition, the National Parks are within Central Hampshire and New Forest, where there is a modest housing target which represents a reduction from the recent and current rates of housebuilding.

The South Hampshire boundary borders both the National Parks. Locations for development will be chosen with regard to their possible impact on the Parks, although there will be no buffer zones as such.

Growth

Q. I represent a fringe parish with a lack of facilities, seriously affected by transport infrastructure and I would like to reiterate that infrastructure requirements need to be hammered home as hard as possible.

The document refers to a growth target pulling in housing and to supporting local development and growth. However, if the target is only providing dormitory facilities for commuters to London and elsewhere this will be very unpopular. How satisfied are you that the growth target in the document will have local benefits?

A. This is a hugely difficult question to answer. The 3% growth target for the South Hampshire sub region is backed by detailed analysis on economic potential. It is realistic and obtainable, as far as we can tell, and considers all aspects such as housing, skills, productivity and existing business growth. It is also part of the monitor and manage approach and can therefore respond to changing conditions. Further analysis is required, however, on how to create stronger links between housing and employment and how to meet direct employment needs.

Infrastructure

Q. What will happen if the Government does not provide the infrastructure required?

A. The Government will make the final decisions on the South East Plan including the housing targets. However PUSH are engaged in constructive dialogue with the Government which includes seeking a concordat that infrastructure will accompany development and bidding for an initial £40m for projects. There is some scope to use money from county funds, other local bodies and from developers but we need to keep insisting on the importance of infrastructure. With large areas of concentrated development, there is more opportunity to get more money out of the process and this approach also gives us a tactical advantage in negotiation with Government.

Q. I thought that the `Where shall we live' consultation document was a well put together document, however I was concerned that infrastructure was not mentioned as an important factor. We can't disregard constraints such as capacity on the A34, M3, railways, primary schools, waste, water.

A. Infrastructure has always been on our agenda from the start. Part One of the South East Plan, which has now been submitted to Government, makes a strong case for infrastructure investment and the authorities will continue to use their influence as much as possible to secure the infrastructure required. However, the question to be considered in this consultation is not is there sufficient infrastructure but where to put housing.

Q. In your presentations you failed to mention that a greater part of Hart District is subject to the Special Protection Area (SPA) designation.

A. It is correct that development around Fleet and in other areas of Hart will be constrained by the Thames Basin Heaths SPA. Rushmoor was highlighted because the constraint on development due to the SPA is much greater than in Hart.

Q. I am concerned about the need to improve transport links from North Hampshire to the PUSH area.

A. Over the period of the plan, it will be necessary to improve transport infrastructure throughout the county. However, the location of development proposed is part of an attempt to reduce cross commuting and it is important to recognise that if transport links improve, commuting will increase.

Revising the South East Plan

Q. What is the process and what flexibility is there to challenge the original figures used in Part 1 of the South East Plan? I am concerned about the use of historical data in the assumptions which have now been used to establish housing Options.

A. There will be an opportunity for everyone to comment on the whole plan next summer. Although the South East Plan is a 20 year plan, it will be reviewed before the 2026 end date of the plan and the first review is expected in the next five years. This will provide us with the opportunity to refresh data. In addition, an important part of the Plan, Monitor, Manage approach adopted by PUSH is the phasing of development which provides the opportunity to respond to changing conditions.

Q. How can parish councils help Hampshire County Council and PUSH to convince John Prescott and the ODPM to stick to the Options presented and not simply take the highest figure for each District?

A. It is for the Hampshire authorities to recommend housebuilding figures for each District to the Regional Assembly, who will then decide on the figures to submit to the Government next March. The ODPM has no role in this. However, John Prescott will decide on the final figures after a public inquiry. If the Government wants a higher figure for housebuilding in the Region, then they would probably ask the local authorities to produce revised figures for each District which add up to the new total. Thus we have the main say over how the overall housebuilding figure is split amongst the Districts.

Working with other bodies

Q. What liaison has there been with the South West region, particularly regarding the infrastructure needed to serve new development? Large development is proposed to the west of the New Forest and I am concerned about the impact of further growth in Southampton on the Forest. Also, what is happening about development around Salisbury? Finally, is there any point writing to Government to ask them to stop development in London and the South East?

A. The South East Dorset authorities are working on sub regional proposals as part of the South West Plan (which is running behind the South East Plan). Hampshire County Council have lodged objections to the Bournemouth/Poole development which may attract more people across the forest if Bournemouth/Poole continues to expand. We are engaged in the process, making our views known and it is clear that the discussions on the Options for South East Dorset are moving in the right direction, however there are no easy answers to this issue. We are also working closely with Wiltshire County Council about development in Salisbury and will continue to do so.

There is no point writing in to Government to ask them to stop development in London and the South East. The signals from Government are that they would like to see more housebuilding than proposed in the current version of the South East Plan.

Specific area concerns (but which raise points of wider relevance)

Q. I am concerned about Whiteley and the lack of access to the north apart from via the motorway.

A. Whiteley provides an example of how the planning of new development should not be done and provides lessons from which we can learn. The housing proposed might be an opportunity to solve some problems in Whiteley by levering in money to be spent on infrastructure there.

Q. New developments are attracting families to Alton, most of the schools are full and there is a failing school, however no new additional primary schools are being developed - when is something going to be done about this?

A. To provide a general context, school rolls are going to fall in the future and therefore we need to reconfigure what provision we have.

The Education Department reviews / updates its figures every year and therefore predictions of pupil numbers will change. If we can argue a shortage of places, then we can access funding from Government and from developer contributions. Hampshire County Council's philosophy would be to solve problems in failing schools first before building new schools.

Appendix 6 - Social and Environmental Group Briefing Seminar Summary

Consultation meeting for Environmental and Social Groups

Winchester Guildhall, 19th September 2005

The seminar was attended by 31 organisations.

This note lists the questions posed at this seminar in relation to the consultation document `Where shall we live?' (with the name of the person/organisation who asked the question if given) and summarises the response given by the Panel; Councillor Seán Woodward, Hampshire County Council; Stuart Jarvis, Deputy Director of the Environment, Hampshire County Council, Clive Chatters, South East Forum for Sustainability & Hampshire Wildlife Trust, and Marion Headicar, Chief Executive, Portsmouth City Council.

Questions raised:

The South East Plan and the `Where Shall We Live?' Consultation

Q. The document talks about economic growth - where does this growth come from?

A. The South Hampshire area has been underperforming economically, and this has posed the question: how do we improve this? There has been a requirement to assess this, and urban brownfield development will help address the concerns regarding the capacity to raise productivity, attract new businesses, and attract the education/skills needed to sustain that growth. We will require a mixture of employment and housing sites to achieve this.

Q. What is `sustainable growth'? Is this possible?

A. The Regional Assembly has defined what it means by `sustainable' in its document entitled the `Integrated Regional Framework'. This document outlines 25 objectives for development which meets the requirements of present and future economic, social and environmental needs. This is the document by which you should judge the Options given in this consultation. If they do not meet those objectives, you may see a need to remind SEERA about them.

Q. Micheldever is not mentioned in any of the documentation. Does this mean that major development at Micheldever has been dropped?

A. Yes, Micheldever is not an Option for growth.

Q. Can you clarify what the phasing will be for urban extensions in this plan?

A. The overall time period for the South East Plan is 2006 - 2026. With this in mind, the strategy would see SDAs contributing to housing growth from 2016, urban extensions from 2011, and Brownfield locations through the entire lifetime of the plan. The mobilisation time required to assemble land allocations and infrastructure have shaped this timetable.

Whitehill Bordon

Q. Alton and Whitehill/Bordon would experience problems regarding transport congestion under some of these growth Options; will the MoD land be sold to Hampshire County Council (HCC) for it to develop?

A. No, the land would not go to HCC automatically. But the county council has been, and will continue to work with, the District councils and statutory bodies to ensure that any development is sustainable.

Q. We have heard that there is a proposal for 3,000 houses in the Whitehill Bordon area, which is roughly 750 hectares - is this still correct?

A. There is a working group already in place to assess the potential for these numbers in the Whitehill Bordon area, however, as we have seen in previous answers, the area in question is very restricted. With the sorts of housing figures offered for Whitehill Bordon, it is considered that they will attract the sort of new services and facilities from developers that the area is asking for.

Q. How certain are you about the release of MoD land at Whitehill Bordon, as are assumed in the consultation Options?

A. There is no certainty over any of the MoD sites in the consultation.

Q. There is reference to Greenfield land at Whitehill Bordon in the document, but does the county council have any specific land in mind for this?

A. No, the county does not have any specific land in mind for this Option.

National Parks

Q. Does the proposed South Downs National Park have the same status as the designated New Forest National Park?

A. We are awaiting the governments decision on the proposed South Downs designation. It's status is almost akin to a designated National Park. The National Park areas are currently protected in the planning system and this already affects the planning policies and the nature of development in these areas, therefore their designation will not impinge on housing numbers. The numbers were not decided directly with reference to the parks but reflect the general approach to protect such areas

Q. Does the National Park suggest that we should see more development away from it, for example in Winchester?

A. No, this is not the way that it works - the National Park might support modest growth numbers in the central Hampshire area (e.g. Whitehill Bordon if the Ministry of Defence (MoD) release the land, whilst Andover can also accept some growth). A mixture of the Options may be acceptable. In the case of Whitehill Bordon the area is highly constrained with international designations, and only a modest degree of development will be possible. There is a balance to be struck between dwelling densities and environmental constraints. Increased densities in some locations can ease development pressures in other more sensitive areas. Locations for development will be chosen with regard to their possible impact on the Parks, although there will be no buffer zones as such. We need to have confidence that we can actually deliver the growth Options that we adopt.

The South Hampshire Area

Q. Are we asking for more houses in South Hampshire than the South East Regional Assembly want?

A. The South East Regional Assembly (SEERA) have formulated the levels of housing, and we hope they have picked the correct figures. PUSH has recognised that the economy is underperforming, and are aiming to help improve it. Both Portsmouth and Southampton have lost jobs and industry, and we require greater level of facilities and events with which to attract the necessary business interest. Therefore the growth is being looked at by PUSH very much as a positive step to maintaining a healthy region and economy. At the end of the day it has to be conceded that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) can impose higher figures, and this would almost certainly lead to higher levels of unplanned development. PUSH is talking to the ODPM about a commitment from government over the amount of infrastructure it will provide, much like the Ashford and Thames Gateway communities (albeit on a smaller scale).

Q. We had heard initially that there were to be four Strategic Development Areas (SDAs) but we are now told there are just two. Can you confirm this? And is the urban extension to the west of Waterlooville in addition to reserve allocations?

A. Yes, there are only two SDAs. The urban extension to the west of Waterlooville is in addition to reserve allocations but the exact locations have yet to be looked at. It is important to note that future assessments will help refine suitable locations, which the Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) will establish.

Q. How will the SDA north of Fareham bring infrastructure improvements? At what stage would schools and other facilities be provided?

A. The principle is always to provide transport infrastructure first to construct the sites, followed by the utilities. Health and educational provision come closely after that, in a controlled phasing. The delivery mechanism for this will be crucial; the new planning system provides opportunities here. PUSH aspire to be the delivery vehicle with an inclusive debate with the health and education authorities. The key message is that it will be conditional, managed growth (with firm commitments from government on infrastructure).

Q. How much of the Fareham area will be within the Priority Area for Economic Regeneration? If SDAs are aiming to be sustainable and self-contained, how does that help the deprived areas?

A. The whole of Fareham will be within the Priority Area. It should be noted that there are deprived areas in all Districts, plus relative deprivation within wards. The PUSH strategy firstly concentrates growth on older urban areas, bringing early benefits from regeneration to those locations.

Q. The overuse of the M27 is a real concern. Why are Options being offered which might see an increase in traffic flow along key routes?

A. This is a key point. We need to be clear that our infrastructures requires a large element of catch-up, before we see further improvements to deal with future growth. The authorities of PUSH are in discussion now with the ODPM on this very issue.

Q. Romsey lies on the fringe of the South Hampshire area. Can you confirm why it was included within this strategic area?

A. It was felt that the links for Romsey were stronger with Southampton than to the north or to the New Forest, and therefore Romsey is considered part of a southern settlements pattern. We are seeking to confirm this through the consultation, and the process should verify this for us. Admittedly, it is found that these boundaries can sometimes be political rather than technical in their nature.

Brownfield Development

Q. Brownfield development is considered as the first priority, but can we also point out that this is potentially a lost opportunity for recreation and wildlife in urban areas?

A. Again, the test must come in the SEERA document regarding sustainability, the Integrated Regional Framework. Planning Policy Statement number 9 is clear about the high value of urban wildlife sites. Not all brownfield locations are suitable for development, and the LDFs will be tasked with making decisions on this very issue.

Q. Three observations to make: i) Gosport is an area requiring significant improvement and investment ii) the coastal zone is covered by many national and internationally important designations, and finally iii) The definition of brownfield land seems rather inaccurate; gardens should not be classified as brownfield as they're of great importance for wildlife.

A. It is conceded that the brownfield definition might be difficult to accept, but it exists in legislation, and there is little at this stage we can do to alter or re-interpret it. Other comments are welcomed and we invite them to form part of your response on the consultation.

Infrastructure

Q. How are water and waste water being dealt with in these Options?

A. The Environment Agency has given SEERA advice on these issues, and they project that the initial water provision will be satisfactory. After 2016 there will be a requirement to upgrade facilities and provide new infrastructure once the SDAs come into play, but it has been acknowledged that wastewater treatment in the Test region will need more substantial investment at a sooner date. With large areas of concentrated development, there is more opportunity to get more money out of the process.

Appendix 7 - Business Breakfast, Winchester - Summary

13 October 2005

HEP Breakfast Seminar Winchester

SE Plan - Housing Distribution Consultation

This breakfast briefing was arranged by the Hampshire Economic Partnership and was attended by 45 members of the Partnership. A presentation on the consultation for North Hampshire and Central Hampshire. New Forest was given by Stuart Jarvis, Deputy Director of Environment, Hampshire County Council.

Discussion - Points raised by HEP members

1 The distribution of affordable housing is important so that affordable lifestyle can be followed. Cheap housing in an isolated location could lead to expensive long distance travel.

2 Concern expressed at the use of brownfield employment sites for housing.

3 If the proposed housing is to meet local needs should not the location be chosen on the basis that the communities which need housing should be the ones where it is provided.

4 Brownfield land is very expensive to develop, leaving less resources available to contribute to infrastructure. Expecting brownfield developers to provide infrastructure and affordable housing is unrealistic, Government funding is required.

5 The policies need to be directed towards Greenfield land releases as these have a greater capacity to provide sustainable development.

6 Are the numbers proposed realistic? Will not Government say more housing is needed within the Plan, how will this be accommodated?

7 Employment and infrastructure are not being given sufficient prominence. Thee should be separate consultations dealing with these.

8 There has been insufficient opportunity to debate strategy.

9 Central Government cannot be trusted to provide infrastructure, Rail and Light Rail being cases in point. Housing should not be provided until major infrastructure is guaranteed.

Appendix 8 - Business Breakfast, Fareham - Summary

Note of a breakfast seminar hosted by Partnership for Urban South Hampshire for South Hampshire business leaders of which 36 organisations attended.

Solent Hotel 18 October 2005

At 8.35 am Councillor Woodward, Chairman of PUSH welcomed everyone.

Stuart Jarvis, Deputy Director of Hampshire County Council then explained why a strategy is needed for South Hampshire. His presentation was followed by Barbara Thompson, Strategic Director for Economy, Culture, and Community Safety, Portsmouth City Council who set out the economic elements of the strategy. Stuart then finished the series of presentations by looking at the environmental, infrastructure and housing parts of the emerging strategy.

Next Councillor Woodward chaired a session with delegates, who asked the following questions:

Q What will the costs be to support the strategy, and who will pay for it?

A PUSH is still quantifying the cost of the strategy. The South East region currently contributes £18 billion net to the Treasury each year and PUSH will be looking to Government to channel some of this money into South Hampshire to help support the growth strategy. In addition, landowners, developers, local government and other agencies all have roles to play.

Q How can PUSH guarantee that the required infrastructure will be built?

It cannot. But it is looking for an agreement with Government to ensure that critical infrastructure is put in place when required.

Q How will the Fareham north SDA be linked to Portsmouth - will it just be a full access to junction 10 or does it involve public transport schemes?

A Public transport links between the SDA and Fareham and Portsmouth are seen as an essential part of the scheme. An extension to the LRT is one possible Option.

Q What can developers do if they want to promote an alternative to the Fareham SDA (mention made to one south of Fareham which would help fund a by-pass for Stubbington)?

A Take the opportunity to make responses to the current round of consultation. There will also be a formal opportunity to comment on the strategy when it is published by the Government next summer, followed by a public examination of the main proposals.

Q What do you expect from the business community to help deliver the strategy?

A The short timetable PUSH was given to prepare the strategy has meant that it has not been possible to engage with the business community as much as it would have liked. It will be looking to widen PUSH to include business community representatives in a more inclusive arrangement.

Q What measures will be put in place to attract an economically active population rather than one made up of retirees

A In addition to providing job opportunities and affordable housing for key workers, PUSH is looking to improve the attractions of South Hampshire for younger people, especially in relation to the cities as part of the wider strategy.

Q What measures will be taken to ensure that adequate infrastructure is put in place?

A Consultants have costed the main infrastructure requirements for the South East as a whole and in addition, an Environmental Appraisal for the South East Plan will help identify what is required by way of supporting `green' and other infrastructure. PUSH will be adopting a `Plan Monitor and Manage' approach to ensure that development is supported by the necessary infrastructure.

Q Is the definition of affordable housing based on the ability of occupiers to pay rather than the actual cost of the building?

A By ability to pay.

Q If affordable housing requirement in the SDA is set at 40% will it really attract developers?

A This is really about landowners and the gains they make due to land value increases as a result of development. PUSH will be looking to work with developers and landowners to ensure that development remains an attractive proposition whilst also providing the necessary affordable housing.

Q Can the SDAs be delivered in 10 years?

A They can if the Government commits now to deliver on the infrastructure. The SDAs may come on stream slower if more growth can be achieved through increases in productivity - this will reduce the need for in-migrants.

Q What is PUSH doing to develop and expand cultural infrastructure?

A PUSH has set up a new sub-group to help develop its approach to this issue. It has also set up a new sustainability group which aims to help create sustainable communities. This includes sustainable construction but also open space and informal recreation. Local authorities will need to work together across South Hampshire as a whole to deliver.

Q Can the planning authorities deliver 4,000 new homes a year?

A Yes, subject to infrastructure. Also, landowners need to start planning now for the SDA and not leave it till later.

After the questions Councillor Woodward set out the next steps for the PUSH strategy and reminded everyone to send their views on the current housing consultation by this Friday (21 October).

Seminar closed at 9.45 am.

AP 19.10.05

Appendix 9 - Complementary District Activities/Initiatives

Appendix 10 - Stakeholder Preferences (Where Shall We Live)

Central Hampshire and New Forest

Stakeholders' Preferences: all responses

Central Hampshire Parish and Town Councils Preferences

Appendix 11 - Resident Preferences (Hampshire Now)

Central Hampshire and New Forest

Q6. Of the 16,000 new homes proposed in Central Hampshire & New Forest, around 14,000 are expected for sites already earmarked for housing & on other town sites. For the remaining 2,000, five sites are possible. Which would you prefer?

All respondents

Appendix 12 - Most frequently made comments: Stakeholders (Where Shall We Live)

Central Hampshire and New Forest