South Hampshire Sub-regional Strategy

Background Document 3

Statement of Consultation

Partnership for Urban South Hampshire

December 2005

CONTENTS

1. Introduction

2. The Consultation process

3. The overall response

4. Responses relating to South Hampshire

5. Appendices

Appendices

Appendix 1 - `Where Shall We Live' consultation document

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 explains the process and outcomes/results of the public consultation undertaken in association with the preparation of District-level housebuilding figures for the South Hampshire sub-region. 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 and the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) which also formulated the options on which public consultation took place during September and October 2005. PUSH comprises the eleven councils which are entirely or partly within the Sub-region: East Hampshire District Council, Eastleigh Borough Council, Fareham Borough Council, Gosport Borough Council, Hampshire County Council, Havant Borough Council, New Forest District Council, Portsmouth City Council, Southampton City Council, Test Valley Borough Council and Winchester City Council.

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 South Hampshire 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 South Hampshire, 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 South Hampshire

Development within existing urban areas

4.1 Respondents were asked: "Of the 80,000 new homes to be built in South Hampshire over the next twenty years, around 11,000 are expected to be built on sites already earmarked for housebuilding. A further 38,000 are proposed to be built on other previously used land within the cities and towns. Is the figure of 38,000:

Too Little? About Right? Too much? Don't Know/not sure?"

4.2 In summary, the District and Borough Councils feel that the urban capacity figure is too low. Key stakeholders and agencies believe that the figure needs to include green infrastructure and open space calculations. `Too high' is the most common reply from other stakeholders and residents. Indeed it is the majority view amongst environmental/amenity/social groups (56%) and South Hampshire residents (64%). See Figures 2 and 3.

District Council Preferences

4.3 Eastleigh Borough Council does not support the urban capacity figure proposed, it feels that a figure nearer 50,000 is more appropriate. The response from Gosport Borough Council offered no comment to the urban capacity figure, but the council stated that it does not support proposals to build family homes above supermarkets or car parks. It is of the council's opinion that this does not improve quality of life. Havant Borough Council and New Forest District Council support an increase in the urban capacity figures to reduce the need for greenfield urban extensions. Test Valley Borough Council support the urban capacity figure. Finally, Winchester City Council believe that as development in urban areas is more sustainable than on greenfields, the target for urban capacity should be raised to at least 55,000 dwellings.

Key Stakeholder Preferences

4.4 Key stakeholders and agencies felt the main concern was the calculations behind the urban capacity. English Nature stress the need to incorporate the provision of green infrastructure, through retention of existing green space and the provision of new green space, into any urban capacity calculations. This also applies to land at risk from coastal flooding.

4.5 The Home Builders Federation (HBF) is particularly concerned about the 38,000 figure for urban capacity. It has suggested that this figure is slightly on the high side. The Federation does support the use of previously developed land but with the objective of achieving mixed and balanced communities. However, it feels that building solely high density blocks of 2-bed flats in town/city centres, is not the ideal way forward to achieve this. The HBF questions how long the demand for such properties will last, particularly if the market becomes saturated with an over supply of a single product and with supply far exceeding demand (a view echoed by the Portsmouth Local Strategic Partnership).

4.6 English Partnerships is supportive of the sequential approach, but is especially keen to see the use of public sector land to help reduce the need to build on green field sites. They are concerned that all brownfield sites are developed where possible before any green field sites are progressed.

4.7 The Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust is supportive of this approach stating that it is consistent with the PUSH vision. However, it questions whether this approach will coincide with enhancing quality of life and believes that achieving it will require compulsory purchase to be a more frequent method of achieving higher densities. The Trust also questions whether it is appropriate for all urban areas to have their densities increased. For example, should areas like Totton and the Waterside have densities and subsequently populations increased when they are in close vicinity to the New Forest National Park, national and international environmental designations, and should additional housing be proposed on Portsea Island when sea-level rise resulting from climate change is such a pressing issue.

Overall Stakeholder Preferences

4.8 Responses on the South Hampshire Options were received from 691 stakeholders comprising; 51 Parish and Town councils, 78 development interests, 83 environmental/amenity/ social groups, and 479 individuals.

4.9 The overall results showed that just over half of the respondents (51%) felt that the urban capacity figure was too high, with 20% feeling it is too low and 18% stating that they thought it was about right.

4.10 Within the different groups of stakeholders, 36% of Parish and Town Councils stated that the figure was too low, with 28% believing it to be about right. 22% of those responding felt the figure is too little. 32% of development interests also believed the figure was too high, along with 56% of Environment/Amenity/Social groups and 55% of Individuals. Other than Parish and Town Councils, the figure being too little came out as second preference with 19%, 20% and 20% respectively, although being about right was very close behind with 18%, 15% and 18% respectively. Figure 2 depicts the preferences for this Option.

Figure 2: Stakeholder Preferences on Urban Capacity

4.11 The figures above relate to stakeholders across the whole county. Of South Hampshire's Parish and Town Councils, 32% think the figure for urban capacity is too high.

Residents Preferences

4.12 56% of all respondents feel that the figure for urban capacity is too high, but this rises to 64% when considering just the views from South Hampshire residents. Figure 3 shows the split between preferences for urban capacity.

Figure 3: Residents Preferences on Urban Capacity

4.13 That South Hampshire - wide figure masks variations between residents of individual Districts. 65% to 79% of residents in the four districts wholly within urban South Hampshire (Eastleigh, Fareham, Gosport and Havant) thought that the figure of 38,000 new homes was "too much". This is more than the range of 48% to 57% of residents who gave the same response but live in the four districts partly within urban South Hampshire (East Hampshire, New Forest, Test Valley and Winchester).

4.14 The conclusion is that people living within the more urbanised districts (Gosport, Fareham, Havant and Eastleigh) are more concerned with this issue than those from the less urbanised authorities (those parts of East Hampshire, Test Valley, Winchester and New Forest within urban South Hampshire). Figure 4 highlights the differences. There is no data for Southampton or Portsmouth as they were not covered by the Hampshire Now survey.

Figure 4: Percentage of residents who feel the 38,000 figure for urban capacity is `too much'

Stakeholders other comments

4.15 There were a number of general comments on urban capacity. Parish and Town councils preferred Options which resulted in minimal greenfield development or the approach which saw brownfield development first, a preference also supported by developers and environmental/social groups. There was also support for Options locating development in urban areas, in particular focused on regenerating Southampton and Portsmouth.

4.16 Concerns were raised in the responses about continuing to build at high densities and the impact this would have on communities, the character and identity of areas and the amount of employment land and open space available. Parish and Town councils took the opportunity to express their concerns about infrastructure issues; identifying the current deficiencies of transport and other infrastructure, voicing their scepticism about the provision of future infrastructure and stating that development must be preceded by infrastructure, a view also supported by a large number of individuals and all types of organisation.

4.17 Developers stated that there was insufficient greenfield provision or that there was a need to bring this forward earlier than proposed. This was largely a reflection of their scepticism about delivering 38,000 houses on previously developed land in this timeframe. Over twenty developers also stated that they were sceptical about the ability to deliver the housing numbers in general over this period.

Fareham `Strategic Development Area'.

4.18 Respondents were asked: "To what extent do you support the proposal for a Strategic Development Area within Fareham Borough compared with the alternative of extensions to many South Hampshire towns?"

4.19 In summary, there is a general feeling of support for this proposal (and the similar one to the north / north east of Hedge End - see page 18) from the District and Borough Councils. Key Stakeholders and Agencies believe that the creation of SDAs is a more sustainable approach to development. More stakeholders are (very or fairly) supportive of the proposed Fareham SDA than are opposed to it. 60% of parish and town councils and 53% of environmental/amenity/social groups support the proposal. Development interests are more divided in their views. South Hampshire residents are split over the proposal (45% support it; 44% oppose it) although the support is greater amongst residents elsewhere in Hampshire. See Figures 5 and 6.

District Council Preferences

4.20 Fareham Borough Council commented on the Fareham SDA, stating that they support the proposal, subject to two caveats: provision of infrastructure and adoption of a `Plan, Monitor and Manage' approach to delivery of the South Hampshire Strategy. Gosport Borough Council objects to the suggestion that if the SDA is not built at Fareham, then it would be necessary to identify greenfield sites in Gosport. Also wishing to offer no comment on whether it supports the proposal of the SDA in this location, the council feels that as few greenfield sites exist within Gosport, this is not a viable alternative. Havant Borough Council and Test Valley Borough Council support the Fareham SDA, whilst New Forest District Council supports the proposals subject to the provision of necessary infrastructure. Finally, Winchester City Council has major reservations to the SDA. The council fears that there will be significant loss of countryside, landscape intrusion and significant traffic impacts. It is felt that without a Strategic Environmental Assessment, the council is unable to agree that these Options are better than alternative urban extensions. With regards to the proposals for Fareham SDA, the council proposes a smaller SDA, augmented by urban extensions elsewhere in Fareham Borough.

Key Stakeholder Preferences

4.21 The Environment Agency considers that the creation of Strategic Development Areas of the scale proposed has the potential to be more sustainable than a number of smaller extensions to smaller urban areas, whilst Southern Water support the concept as it minimises the cost of providing the necessary infrastructure.

4.22 There are concerns from the Environment Agency and the Highways Agency that both SDA s will result in increased pressure on the M27. Encouraging people to use public transport is as much about changing attitudes and lifestyles as providing physical infrastructure, they argue.

4.23 English Nature is concerned that development at the North of Fareham location is `leapfrogging' the M27, and potentially having a detrimental affect upon the character and functioning of the countryside north of the Motorway. As a result they urge the County Council and PUSH to seek specialist advice from landscape colleagues, both in-house and at the Countryside Agency when assessing these implications. Portsmouth Water believe that development at this site would also require additional mains supply, but owing to the sites close proximity to existing infrastructure, this shouldn't be a problem.

4.24 In terms of sewage treatment and water quality, Southern Water have initially identified no constraints to development, but precise assessment is only possible once the location, scope and timing of development is known.

4.25 The Home Builders Federation is broadly in favour of SDAs but stress the need to produce detailed implementation policies for these areas if they are to come on stream in the timeframe required.

4.26 The Portsmouth Local Strategic partnership is very supportive of both the SDA's.

4.27 The Campaign to Protect Rural England Hampshire Branch state that if a target was set of accommodating 75% of development on previously developed land, then there would be no need for the Fareham SDA, although it sees the SDA concept as a better alternative to urban extensions/sprawl. They feel that an SDA in this location would set precedents for major development north of the M27 Motorway in an area of open countryside leading to the proposed South Downs National Park. In addition the CPRE sees it as vital to set out clear policies for the remaining countryside in the sub-region.

4.28 In the opinion of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, it is difficult to reconcile the SDA approach with the PUSH vision for regenerating the two cities, as they appear remote from the two cities with poor linking infrastructure. The Trust also has major concerns as to whether the planning system has the ability to deliver such sustainable communities as set out in the consultation document. Until a credible mechanism can be demonstrated for delivering such growth areas, the Trust objects to this approach.

Overall Stakeholder Preferences

4.29 55% of all stakeholders were supportive (very and fairly combined) of the Fareham SDA, with 35% opposed (not very and not at all supportive).

4.30 Parish and Town Councils showed the most support with 60% of responses in support (very or fairly) of the proposal, as against 18% who were not supportive. Those with development interests were split with 42% in favour and 43% in opposition, but both the Environmental/Amenity/Social Groups and the Individuals supported the proposals with 53% and 55% respectively. Figure 5 shows the split in preferences between the groups.

Figure 5: Stakeholder Preferences on Fareham SDA

4.31 Of South Hampshire Parish and Town Councils, 68% are in favour (Very supportive and fairly supportive) of the Fareham SDA.

Residents Preferences

4.32 46% of all residents countywide are in support of the Fareham SDA, a figure which remains similar (45%) for South Hampshire Residents. However, opposition to the SDA which was 32% for all respondents, rises to 44% among South Hampshire residents, see Figure 6.

Figure 6: Residents Preferences on Fareham SDA

4.33 As a general rule, the closer residents live to the proposed SDA, the less supportive they are of the proposal. Some 87% of residents in the Knowle/Wickham area were either not very supportive or not supportive at all. In and around Whiteley, the figure is 78% while in Fareham and Porchester, 72% of residents do not support the proposal. In contrast,, the majority of residents elsewhere in South Hampshire, support the proposal (Figure 7).

Figure 7: Views of residents who live near the proposed SDA north of Fareham

Stakeholder other comments

4.34 The advantages of locating new development in SDAs, or in larger developments, were identified by a large number of developers and individuals and similar numbers of parish and town councils and environmental and social groups. Although an opposing view was presented for specific sites, only one organisation was against SDAs in general. However, comments were received on the size of the proposed SDAs, with a parish and town council and three developers arguing for smaller development areas.

4.35 Of those respondents who made additional comments on the consultation, more organisations were opposed to the proposed Fareham SDA than supported it, largely as a result of the number of developers against the proposal. In addition, more detailed concerns were raised by developers and environmental and social groups about the need to protect Knowle and surrounding villages from being engulfed by the Fareham SDA.

Hedge End `Strategic Development Area'.

4.36 Respondents were asked: "To what extent do you support the proposal for a `Strategic Development Area' to the north east of Hedge End compared with the alternative of extensions to many South Hampshire towns?

4.37 In summary, there was a split in support of the SDA between the District and Borough Councils. Key Stakeholders and Agencies believe that the creation of SDAs is a more sustainable approach to development. All stakeholders except development interests showed more support for the SDA proposal than opposition. Support is greatest amongst Parish and Town Councils (57%) and Environmental/Social/ Amenity Groups (59%). More South Hampshire residents support the proposal than are against it - 46% supportive compared to 40% opposed. As with the Fareham SDA, support is greater amongst residents elsewhere in Hampshire. See Figures 8 and 9.

District Council Preferences

4.38 Eastleigh Borough Council does not support the proposal for the SDA at Hedge End on the basis that any decision cannot be made until further studies into the economic, environmental and social effects of the proposals have been undertaken, proving that growth can be sustainably located in this location. Havant and Test Valley Borough Councils support the Hedge End SDA proposals, so does New Forest District Council subject to the provision of necessary infrastructure.. Winchester City Council has major reservations, fearing that there will be significant loss of countryside, landscape intrusion and significant traffic impacts. Without a Strategic Environmental Assessment, the council is unable to agree that these Options are better than alternative urban extensions. The council is concerned that the Hedge End SDA is too close to proposed development at Whiteley and Fareham, and skews development too much to the east of the sub-region. It suggests that either the proposed SDA should be reduced in size or moved to the west of Hedge End where it would better serve Southampton. If it remains as proposed, it should adjoin Hedge End to allow full use of the existing railway station.

Key Stakeholder Preferences

4.39 The Environment Agency considers that the creation of Strategic Development Areas of the scale proposed has the potential to be more sustainable than a number of smaller extensions to smaller urban areas, whilst Southern Water support the concept as it minimises the cost of providing the necessary infrastructure.

4.40 There are concerns from the Environment Agency and the Highways Agency that both SDA s will result in increased pressure on the M27. Encouraging people to use public transport is as much about changing attitudes and lifestyles as providing physical infrastructure, they argue.

4.41 The Hedge End SDA is outside the area of supply of Portsmouth Water, but is crossed by one of its mains pipes, so the company states that it would be possible to supply the site using the mains, although the economics of supplying the site would depend on the outcome of the review of abstraction licences on the River Itchen, but at this point they believe that this can be done.

4.42 In terms of sewage treatment and water quality, Southern Water have initially identified no constraints to development, but precise assessment is only possible once the location, scope and timing of development is known.

Overall Stakeholder Preferences

4.43 The overall picture for the Hedge End SDA was 56% of Stakeholders are very or fairly supportive and 34% are (not very and not at all supportive).

4.44 All groups except those with development interests showed more support for the Hedge End SDA proposal than opposition. Figure 8 shows how support for the proposal from Parish and Town Councils (57%), Environmental/Social/Amenity Groups (59%) and Individuals (57%) is greater than opposition to the proposal.

Figure 8: Stakeholder Preferences on Hedge End SDA

4.45 In terms of South Hampshire's Parish and Town Councils, 55% are in favour of the Hedge End SDA. (Chris Huhne) MP for Eastleigh submitted the results of a survey undertaken of residents of Hedge End, which showed that 99% thought that too many homes were being planned in South Hampshire. Although 23% of those surveyed thought that new towns in South Hampshire were a good idea, the majority did not think that Hedge End was an appropriate location for one.

Residents Preferences

4.46 46% of all residents and 46% of South Hampshire residents are in favour of the Hedge End SDA proposal, with 31% of all residents opposed but 40% of South Hampshire residents against the proposal. Figure 9 shows the results.

Figure 9: Residents Preferences on Hedge End SDA

4.47 People living closest to the proposed SDA were least in favour of the proposal. Some 78% of residents of Hedge End and 53% of people who live to the north of Hedge End, were either not very supportive or not supportive at all. In contrast, residents who live elsewhere in South Hampshire are far more supportive of the proposal. See figure 10.

Figure 10: Views of residents who live near the proposed SDA to the north/north east of Hedge End

Stakeholders other comments

4.48 Alternatives sites for SDAs were identified in South Fareham, with a number of individuals and organisations stating that houses should be located south of the M27, and in Cowplain. The Option of an urban extension to Hedge End and Fair Oak instead of a SDA was also put forward.

Urban Extensions

4.49 Respondents were asked: "Around 12,500 new homes are proposed on greenfields elsewhere in South Hampshire. There are three Options for locating this housebuilding. Which do you support?"

4.50 Option A: 5,000 in Winchester District (mainly as extensions to the west of Waterlooville and to the north of Whiteley); 4,000 in southern Test Valley Borough (in the form of extensions to all the main settlements); 1,500 in Havant Borough on the edge of Leigh Park and with other locations making a modest contribution; 1,000 in the Waterside and Totton parts of the New Forest; 1,000 in the southern parishes of East Hampshire.

Option B: 7,000 in Winchester District (mainly as a larger extension to the west of Waterlooville and an extension to the north of Whiteley); 3,250 in Test Valley Borough (probably as extensions to some of the main settlements); 1,250 in Havant Borough on the edge of Leigh Park and with other locations making a modest contribution; 500 in the Waterside and Totton parts of the New Forest; 500 in the southern parishes of East Hampshire.

Option C: 8,200 in Winchester District (mainly as extensions to the west of Waterlooville and to the north of Whiteley); 2,500 in southern Test Valley Borough (probably as extensions to a few of the main settlements); 1,000 in Havant Borough on the edge of Leigh Park and with other locations making a modest contribution; 800 in the southern parishes of East Hampshire. None in New Forest.

4.51 The District and Borough Councils were split between the different Options for urban extensions. Option C was the most popular amongst Parish and Town Councils (38%), Option A gained greatest support amongst Development Interests (45%), and Option B the most popular amongst Environmental/Amenity/Social Groups (35%). South Hampshire residents were more evenly split, although of the 3 Options, A and C gained the greatest support - 26% and 28% respectively.

District Council Preferences

4.52 East Hampshire District Council support Option B. Eastleigh Borough Council did not comment on the particular Options for urban extensions, but states that where greenfield development is necessary, this should be focused on Southampton and Portsmouth alongside improvements to the transport corridors and other important infrastructure. Gosport Borough Council, urges that housing and employment figures should not be confirmed until further feasibility and environmental appraisals have been completed. Havant Borough Council favour Option 1, strongly objecting to Options 2 and 3, especially regarding West of Waterlooville MDA. New Forest District Council prefers Option 3, objecting to Options 1 and 2 as they are likely to have unacceptable impacts on the National Park and surrounding area. With particular regards to the National Park, New Forest District Council also state that there must be a full sustainability appraisal/strategic environmental assessment of the Options before any decision is taken. Test Valley Borough Council also favour Option 3, whilst drawing attention to the constraints to development in the southern area of the Borough. Finally, Winchester City Council prefers Option 1, but only if matched by infrastructure, particularly: Whiteley Way/Botley Bypass and the Waterlooville Southern Access Road, schools, health facilities etc. and protection of important nature conservation interests.

Key Stakeholder Preferences

4.53 Both the Environment Agency and English Nature are concerned that the effects of proposed development on the Emer Bog Special Area of Conservation which lies between North Baddesley, Romsey and Valley Park, have not been fully appreciated. Any urban extension in this area needs to avoid adverse impacts on this SAC, they argue.

4.54 English Nature is also concerned that the areas North of Whiteley and extension to the West of Waterlooville Major Development Area are areas characterised by attractive and ecologically rich landscapes and they strongly advise that the sustainability of such extensions be tested.

4.55 Portsmouth Water is concerned over the proposals for urban extensions at Havant (Leigh Park). The proposed reservoir site at Havant Thicket needs to be respected, as well as the Country Park and the new pipeline infrastructure between the reservoir and Havant and Bedhampton springs. However, English Nature accept that an urban extension in this location, dependent on infrastructure, could offer potential for regeneration of the area and improve people's quality of life.

4.56 English Nature welcome the recognition that only a modest amount of new greenfield development is appropriate in East Hampshire and New Forest, but is concerned that any development in New Forest will inevitably result in indirect impacts on the National Park. Consequently, English Nature is seriously concerned about Options A and B, that promote greenfield development in the vicinity of the New Forest. They also query whether urban extensions in East Hampshire will contribute to PUSH's vision for regenerating the older areas in the sub-region.

4.57 The Southampton and Fareham Chamber of Commerce's view is that the proposed urban extensions will not provide enough housing and not soon enough.

4.58 Portsmouth Local Strategic Partnership favour the Option for a large extension west of Waterlooville, which will help provide the housing to support Portsmouth.

4.59 The Mid-Hampshire branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England believe that the 12,500 houses proposed for urban extensions will not be needed, as a number of large brownfield sites will come forward.

4.60 The Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust see the Urban Extension approach as to contrary to the PUSH vision. It welcomes the recognition of the need to avoid significant impacts on the New Forest National Park but stresses that any proposals for the Emer Bog area east of Romsey must be tested through the Appropriate Assessment procedure. The Trust also feels that Winchester, North of Whiteley and West of Waterlooville do not readily lend themselves to sustainable development due to their rich and sensitive landscapes and poor transport infrastructure. The Trust believes that there are opportunities for urban extensions at Leigh Park, if part of a comprehensive scheme of investment to regenerate the area, but that otherwise it is difficult to envisage how urban extensions in the vicinity of the National Parks can be achieved without adverse direct, indirect or cumulative impacts.

Overall Stakeholder Preferences

4.61 38% of Stakeholders preferred Option A, with Option C (26%) then Option 1 (22%), Option C was the preferred choice for Parish and Town Councils (38%), Option A for those with Development Interests (45%), Option B for Environmental/Amenity/Social Groups (35%) and Option A for Individuals (39%). Figure 11 shows these preferences.

Figure 11: Stakeholder Preferences on Urban Extensions

4.62 41% of South Hampshire's Parish and Town Councils are in favour of Option A.

Residents Preferences

4.63 27% of all residents favoured Option C although more (37%) did not know or were unsure. Amongst South Hampshire residents, there was a more even split with 28% in favour of Option C, 26% in favour of Option A with 27% stating that they did not know or where unsure. This can be seen in Figure 12.

Figure 12: Residents Preferences on Urban Extensions

Stakeholders other comments

4.64 The notion of urban extensions was generally met favourably, with only a limited number of all of the groups stating that they should be discouraged. Many developers commented that the urban extensions needed to be brought forward sooner than currently anticipated or that there should be more emphasis on urban extensions as a location for new homes.

4.65 With regards to the specific locations of urban extensions, a similar number of groups both supported and opposed the proposal of development in the Totton/Waterside area. Three developers were in support of this location for housing, whereas two parish/town councils and one environmental/social group felt that the area around Totton was highly constrained and therefore unsuitable for major development. In general, comments were made that regeneration of Totton's town centre was needed before any development on the fringe of the area and that any development in this area should have regard to its proximity to the New Forest National Park.

4.66 In Test Valley four developer groups supported the notion of development in the area, with some specifying that Test Valley could accommodate more homes than specified in the consultation documentation. Contrary to this view, equal numbers of parish/town councils and environmental/social groups strongly opposed the proposal.

4.67 In the Eastleigh area, only a limited number of comments were received as this area was not specifically identified for a possible urban extension. One individual and one parish/town council felt that Eastleigh should have been recognised as a location for an urban extension. In addition to these comments, two separate suggestions were received which promoted the areas of Breach Farm, Bishopstoke and the area to the north of Bishops Waltham for development.

4.68 In Whiteley and the nearby area, support was received from two developers regarding the possible urban extension to the north of Whiteley. There was also suggestions from individuals that Hamble airfield and Titchfield should be considered as possible sites for development. Many comments which discussed development in the area of Whiteley referred to the need to improve the transport infrastructure.

4.69 Comments were received both in opposition and support of development West of Waterlooville. Two developer groups supported the location as one for additional development, whereas two parish/town councils and one environmental/social group opposed any additional development at this location. Some environmental/social groups felt that West of Waterlooville should not have more than 2000 homes.

4.70 Some comments were received which related to the possible urban extension at Leigh Park. One environmental/social group opposed the notion of an urban extension in this location whereas another environmental group supported this proposal. In addition to these comments, one developer suggested the area of Woodcroft farm, Havant for a possible urban extension. As with development in the western area of Hampshire, general comments were received that any development in the eastern area of Hampshire should be careful not to impinge on the setting of the proposed South Downs National Park or other areas of environmental importance, such as Chichester Harbour.

Alternative Options Suggested

4.71 22 respondents from South Hampshire expressed the opinion that development should be encouraged or directed to other parts of the country, especially the north of England. 2 Individuals suggested alternative small sites in Ashhurst, Southampton. There was also suggestions of development at Titchfield, North of Bishops Waltham, Swanmore, Hamble Airfield, HMS Mecury in Clanfield and Wickham.

4.72 Raymond Brown Limited wish to put forward their current landfill site at Rookery Farm near Whiteley. On behalf of various clients in South Hampshire, Southern Planning Practice suggests extensions to Hedge End and Fair Oak instead of the Hedge End SDA. The Borrow Foundation promote Hazleton Farm, Cowplain as an alternative SDA to those at North of Fareham and Hedge End and the Ashfield Estate suggests that there should be an urban extension within Test Valley, ideally on the south side of Romsey.

4.73 Redrow Homes (Southern) Limited propose a major urban extension south of Fareham whilst White Young Green Planning, on behalf of 6 clients promote `sustainable urban extensions' south of the A27 at Eastleigh, Fareham, Gosport, Havant, Southampton and Portsmouth.

4.74 Wates Homes recommend a combination of major urban extensions to the key settlements, minor extensions to smaller settlements, and release of greenfield sites at transport nodes such as Whiteley. More specifically, Barker Mill Estate suggest urban extensions to Nursling, Rownhams, North Totton, South Totton and Marchwood. Luken Beck Partnership Limited arguethat development should be directed along the transport corridors, particularly the M3, M27 and main railway lines.

4.75 The Abbottswood Consortium give general support for more greenfield urban extensions, for example at Romsey and wish to see a higher proportion of the development to take place in Test Valley Borough. Bryan Jezeph Consultancy consider that more development should take place at Wickham, and that Denmead should be an alternative location to development at West of Waterlooville.

4.76 George Wimpey UK Limited and Bovis Homes suggest an SDA to the south/south east of Eastleigh linking into Southampton airport, whilst Turley Associates on behalf of Mrs J Manson argue for more urban extensions within Havant, especially at Woodcroft Farm, Wecock. Adams Hendry, on behalf of their client The English Province of Our Lady of Charity, suggest extensions to the settlements of Horndean, Clanfield and Rowlands Castle. The Edom Trustees, represented by Dreweatt Neate wish to see an extension to Romsey at Halterworth and English Partnerships suggest redevelopment of Cold East Hospital.

General Comments

4.77 There was much support for the statement that it is essential for infrastructure and services to be in place, prior to new housing and employment development. The Environment Agency and English Nature both raise concerns that the consultation process has been undertaken before the production of the Strategic Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment. Consequently both organisations state that if during the iterative process the housing numbers and their distribution are found to be unsustainable or environmentally unacceptable, then allowances be made to change the plan. The adoption of the Integrated Regional Frameworks objectives is welcomed by English Nature and the Environment Agency, and both urge that all decisions that arise from this process be tested against the objectives.

4.78 In terms of water supply, the Water Companies agree that this can be met, but at the same time they highlight the importance of managing the demands on water resources, a sentiment shared with the Environment Agency. Water efficiency measures and a concerted effort to change lifestyles and attitudes, with regards to water use/consumption are promoted by these organisations.

4.79 The National Health Service stresses that without precise numbers and locations, judgements are hard to make. However, in terms of health provision, it sees geographical position as less important, and would prefer not to see development of new small isolated communities.

4.80 English Nature made a number of other general comments regarding the consultation. High on its objectives are the safeguarding of environmental sites. They actively urge the County Council and PUSH to consider whether the Options can be accommodated without adversely affecting, whether directly, indirectly or cumulatively, the integrity of the internationally important Special Protection Areas and Special Areas of Conservation. It is also its view that decisions relating to future development in Hampshire could be strengthened by better consideration of the environment as a real economic asset. It stresses the importance of environmental infrastructure of which `green infrastructure' plays a crucial role. Conserving and enhancing such structures will help to fulfil the principles of sustainable development that the Council is obliged to undertake.

4.81 Southampton and Fareham Chamber of Commerce raised concerns about the way in which the housing numbers have been apportioned, (a view shared by the Home Builders Federation). Reliance on current brownfield land and employment locations is not sufficient for the proposed housing. They also argue that land for housing must not include sites which should be used for employment - a view supported also by the Hampshire Economic Partnership.

4.82 Hampshire Economic Partnership is supportive of the housing numbers only on the condition that the development must be accompanied by pre-planned transport and utilities infrastructure (also the view of Portsmouth Local Strategic Partnership).

4.83 The Home Builders Federation (HBF) is very concerned about what it sees as the imposition of housing numbers onto the Districts by the Regional Assembly. The apportioned distribution of housing between Districts is seen as arbitrary in view of the need to increase rates of development across all areas. The lack of a complete Sustainability Appraisal is also of concern to the HBF.

4.84 English Partnerships strongly suggests the use of surplus public sector land to achieve sustainable communities, reducing the need to build on green field sites, and provide opportunities for strategic objectives to be achieved without straight disposals to the private sector.

4.85 The Campaign to Protect Rural England (Hampshire Branch) believe the figure for the South East as a whole is too high, and this in turn will put the countryside of the Hampshire sub-regions at risk. It believes that the necessary infrastructure to support such growth will not materialise, and even as to whether the jobs will come forward to support growth, especially in the south of the county. They feel that the calculations for all the Options for all three sub-areas heavily underestimate the potential contribution from brownfield land, and It suggests a figure near to 75% in all 3 sub-areas could be achieved. The CPRE also feels that there are big uncertainties over distributing housing numbers over a 20 year period, for example uncertainties over MOD land release, and therefore the County should therefore continue with the system of reserve sites backed by annual monitoring. All major developments should contain a mix of types sizes and ownership to reflect demographic trends and the affordable housing element must be safeguarded.

4.86 The Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust are looking towards Hampshire County Council and PUSH to champion sustainable development, but it is critical of the lack of information regarding the relative sustainability of the Options and are worried that the Options are being worked up before the plan has been tested against Sustainability Appraisal or Strategic Environmental Assessment.

4.87 One of the most serious concerns to come out of the consultation from residents is the need to provide improvements in infrastructure to coincide with any new development. Transport infrastructure is thought as especially pertinent as the sub-region suffers badly from road congestion and total traffic gridlock. A shortage in water/sewage treatment works, schools, hospitals, doctors also adds to the concern of many residents.

4.88 There is a general feeling that the sub-region is already overcrowded. A common response was that the numbers are too great and consequently that no further development should take place in the area. Directing development to the north of the country is a policy that a number of respondent felt should be employed.

4.89 Protecting greenfields by fully utilising brownfield sites is another policy that many respondents view as vital to allowing new development. There is a case to redevelop ex-factory sites within the sub-region as a method for accommodating new development.

5. Appendices

Appendix 1 - `Where Shall We Live' consultation document Where shall we live

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:

Your-hopes-for-Hampshire

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 to 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, Chairman of PUSH; 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 Seán 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)

Stakeholders' Preferences: all responses

Question1

Question 2 - South Hampshire

Question 3 - South Hampshire

Question 4 - South Hampshire