Sub Regional Policy Advice to SEERA
Advice on District-level housebuilding targets for
Central Hampshire and New Forest
Alison Quant
Director of Environment
Hampshire County Council
December 2005
In July 2005, the South East England Regional Assembly decided that the South East Plan should propose the building of 800 new homes per year in the `Rest of Hampshire'. The extent of this area - referred to in this document as `Central Hampshire and New Forest' - is shown on the map on the opposite page. It includes parts of six district council areas: Basingstoke and Deane Borough; East Hampshire District; Hart District; New Forest District; Test Valley District; Winchester District.
The Regional Assembly commissioned Hampshire County Council, working closely with the relevant district councils, to advise the Assembly on how the total of 800 new homes per year should be split amongst the districts. Representatives of the Assembly's economic, social and environmental partners have also been involved in the work. The Assembly required the County Council to consult with the public on draft proposals for at least six weeks before submitting them to the Assembly by 9 December 2005.
In the Summer of 2005 the Regional Assembly agreed that the boundary of the Western corridor sub-area could be amended. As a result of this change part of Hart district was included within the Central Hampshire and New Forest area. Because the change was made late in the process only limited data about this area has been assessed. However as the area is mainly rural it is not expected to make a significant contribution to provision arising from existing commitments or urban potential nor is it likely to be a suitable location for significant amounts of additional new housing.
This report describes the technical analysis which led to the options published for public consultation during 5 September - 21 October 2005 (seven weeks). It summarises the comments received and the County Council's subsequent decisions on the appropriate housebuilding figure for the part of each district which is within Central Hampshire and New Forest. These decisions - set out in Chapter 6 at the end of this report - constitute the County Council's advice to the Regional Assembly.
S11.1/pf/2290
9 December 2005
Mr Paul Bevan
Chief Executive
South-East England Regional Assembly
Berkeley House
Cross Lanes
GUILDFORD GU1 1UN
Dear Paul,
South-East Plan - Advice in Respect of the Rest of Hampshire
This letter provides the advice which the Regional Assembly has requested from Hampshire County Council on how the Assembly's total figure for the `Rest of Hampshire' (from hereon referred to as `Central Hampshire and New Forest') should be distributed amongst the constituent District Council areas. As explained below, the process followed the requirements including for public consultation, which were set out in the brief issued by the Assembly.
Subject to the provisos set out below, the County Council is submitting a distribution of the Assembly's total of 800 homes per annum as follows:-
Basingstoke and Deane (part) |
30 |
East Hampshire (part) |
200 |
Hart (part) |
5 |
New Forest (part) |
130 |
Test Valley (part) |
250 |
Winchester (part) |
185 |
Total |
800 |
The above distribution is in harmony with the majority views expressed during the public consultation held in September - October 2005 on options for District-level housing figures and is consistent with technical work undertaken by officers including the latest information on land supply at April 2005. The distribution was endorsed by a joint meeting of Leaders/Executive Members of the County and Borough/District Councils held on 11 November 2005.
/Continued......
Mr Paul Bevan
9 December 2005
The full County Council meeting yesterday resolved to submit the above distribution subject to guarantees on infrastructure investment. Whilst the Assembly has not requested advice from the Hampshire authorities on the necessary new/improved transport and other infrastructure, the construction of 800 new dwellings per year - 16,000 over the period of the South East Plan - will require significant investment in transport, utility services and community infrastructure. Government assurances are needed that the necessary scale of infrastructure investment will be available. Unless that is forthcoming, the new housing development above will be unsustainable and cannot be accepted.
In addition, yesterday's County Council meeting resolved to press for a Green Belt to be established to protect vulnerable countryside around the Hampshire's urban areas and to prevent coalescence of cities, towns and villages. The Council meeting acknowledged that the extent of this new Green Belt would need to be consistent with the development strategy. It would complement the small area of Green Belt which already exists in the south western corner of the county on the edge of Christchurch/Bournemouth.
In preparing the housing distribution, the County Council has worked closely with all the District Councils within the area. A joint group of officers from all the authorities has overseen the technical work, punctuated by workshops to which representatives of the Assembly's social, environmental and economic partners were invited. Joint meetings of Members of all the authorities were held at key stages: to prepare the options for consultation and to consider the results of the consultation. Since April 2005 when the shadow New Forest National Park Authority came into existence, representatives of that body have been invited to all the officer and member meetings.
I attach a summary of the technical work, the consultation results, the sustainability appraisal and the rationale for the final housing distribution. The County Council's Director of Environment will send to you early next week, the more detailed technical documentation which you require including the Statement of Consultation.
Yours sincerely
Ken Thornber
Leader
CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD .......................................................................... 1
LETTER FROM LEADER OF HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL..... 2
SUMMARY............................................................................. 5
1. PROFILE OF CENTRAL HAMPSHIRE AND NEW FOREST 1010
2. THE CONSULTATION OPTIONS 1212
3. Overview Sustainability Appraisal 1717
4. OVERVIEW OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES 1919
5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON NATIONAL PARKS, AONBs, SPAs and SACs 2626
ANNEXES
A. Estimation of existing housing land supply/capacity
B Public consultation data
C Sustainability proformas
D Commuting Data
E Promoting self-contained settlements
F Map of Main Environmental Constraints
SUMMARY
Overall house building target set by SEERA for this sub-area is 800 new homes per year 2006-2026 - ie 16,000 new homes in total 2006-2026. On the basis of this new housebuilding and the predicted fall in the average size of households, it is forecast that total population of Central Hampshire and New Forest in 2026 will be around the same as now.
Consultation Options
Of the 16,000 target, 14,000 were expected to be built on sites already earmarked for housing or on other sites within towns. The consultation options for accommodating the remaining 2,000 were:
· All at Winchester (Barton Farm)
· All at Andover
· All at Whitehill/Bordon (on land currently occupied by the MoD)
· Some at Andover and some at Whitehill/Bordon
· Shared amongst all the Districts
Stakeholders' Preferences
Locating all 2,000 at Whitehill/Bordon is the most popular option with Parish/Town Councils and environmental/amenity/social groups. Sharing the development amongst all the Districts is their second preference; it is the development interests' first choice. Detailed figures are overleaf.
Residents' Preferences
Locating all the development at Whitehill/Bordon is the most popular option with residents of Central Hampshire and New Forest and also with residents countywide. Sharing the development amongst all the Districts is the second choice of both. Detailed figures are overleaf.
Borough/District Councils' Preferences
All Borough/District Councils except East Hampshire support or would be content with sharing the development amongst all Districts. East Hampshire District Council does not object to that concept, but is concerned that its figure within that option is too high. Winchester City Council opposes all 2,000 being allocated to Winchester. Test Valley Borough Council would accept around 1,000 being allocated to Andover. New Forest District Council would be content with any of the five options; Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council calls for the figure for its small area to be 30 dwellings per annum.
East Hampshire District Council calls for development at Whitehill/Bordon (which could be substantially more than 2,000 dwellings) to be treated as a special case outside the current discussions. If land becomes available at Whitehill/Bordon, they argue this should be treated as additional to the current overall total for Central Hampshire and New Forest. A decision on whether the MoD will release land at Whitehill/Bordon will not be made before summer 2006.
Key Agencies' Preferences
The Environment Agency has some concerns about developing all 2,000 new homes at Winchester in terms of water availability and the potential impact on water quality in the River Itchen which is a SSSI and a Special Area of Conservation. The latter concern is shared by English Nature, who also make the same point in relation to the Winchester component of the option of sharing the development amongst the Districts.
The Environment Agency has some concerns that developing all 2,000 new homes at Andover could impact on rover water quality in that area. Thames Water advises that 400 new homes at Whitehill/Bordon could be accommodated by the existing sewage treatment works and thus expresses a preference for the other options which do not involve development at Whitehill/Bordon above that level.
English Nature is concerned about the possible impact of development at Whitehill/Bordon on the adjacent Special Protection Area and Special Areas of Conservation, does not support substantial development there until there is certainty about whether the MoD land will be released. For similar reasons, it also has concerns about the option which splits the housing between Andover and Whitehill/Bordon.
The Highways Agency and health bodies make general comments but do not express any preferences between the three consultation options.
Main Findings of the Sustainability Appraisal
Those options that include development at Whitehill/Bordon perform less well in respect of the appraisal criteria than the other options. Although the development at Whitehill/Bordon is likely to be on brownfield land which scores positively in the appraisal, there are possible conflicts with the Special Protection Area adjacent to the town and other Natura 2000 sites while its location means there is a greater likelihood of travel by car. The remaining options perform relatively similarly, with each option having slightly different strengths and weaknesses.
It was more difficult to assess the option of sharing the development around the Districts because unlike the other options, the locations for additional development were not specified in the consultation document. However for the purposes of the appraisal, it was assumed that the locations chosen could result in more car based journeys, they may not be as accessible to services and facilities and could have an impact on biodiversity. On that basis, the options of locating all the 2,000 new homes at Winchester or Andover performed slightly better than the option of sharing the development around the Districts.
Preferred Option
The following is suggested as a preferred, hybrid option: sharing the development amongst all Districts, but with an increased amount of house building at Andover and correspondingly less in East Hampshire District. If land becomes available at Whitehill/Bordon, this would be advanced as an addition to Central Hampshire and New Forest's current total of 800 dwellings per annum. This approach would be in line with the preferences expressed by stakeholders, residents and the Borough/District Councils. It was endorsed by a joint meeting of Executive Members of the County and Borough/District Councils held on 11 November 2005.
In addition, it is necessary to allow for the implementation of existing planning permissions and other infilling within settlements in the Odiham/North Warnborough area which was transferred to Central Hampshire and New Forest from the Western Corridor and Blackwater Valley Sub-Region after the consultation options were drawn up.
On the above basis, the 2,000 dwellings would be shared as follows:
Basingstoke and Deane (part) 100
East Hampshire (part) 200
Hart (Part) 100
New Forest (part) 100
Test Valley (part) 1,000
Winchester 500
The preferred option is a modified version of the consultation option of sharing the 2,000 amongst all Districts, but in relation to the sustainability appraisal, is likely to perform better than the unmodified option. This is because there will be more housing in Andover which is a relatively sustainable location for development and less in East Hampshire where there is more likely to be conflicts with areas of nature conservation importance or the proposed South Downs National Park.
Subsequent to the joint Member meeting referred to above, updated information has become available on the supply of land already earmarked for housebuilding. This erodes the 2,000 dwellings for which it was thought that new greenfield sites would be needed; the revised figure is 700. The updated figures show an increase in land supply in most Districts; a distribution which is in line with the preferred option above.
The updated figures mean that nearly all the new housing required by the preferred option could be accommodated on sites already allocated for development in adopted/draft Local Plans or within the estimates of urban capacity. The preferred option would require two Boroughs - Basingstoke and Deane and Test Valley - to identify additional greenfield land for development when they prepare their Local Development Frameworks. (See table at the end of this appendix). In the other Districts, new greenfield sites would only needed if the estimates for urban capacity turn out to have been over-optimistic.
SEERA requires that the figures for each District are submitted to it as housebuilding provision per annum. Translating the figures above into that format means the following dwellings per annum:
Basingstoke and Deane (part) 30
East Hampshire (part) 200
Hart (part) 5
New Forest (part) 130
Test Valley (part) 250
Winchester 185
Total 800
Central Hampshire and New Forest: Public Consultation Results
Stakeholders' Preferences
Winchester |
Andover |
Whitehill /Bordon |
Andover + Whitehill /Bordon |
Shared among all |
Don't Know |
Total Number | |
Parish + Town Councils |
8% |
10% |
30% |
16% |
26% |
10% |
61 |
Development interests |
16% |
21% |
9% |
5% |
33% |
16% |
43 |
Env/ Amenity/ Social Grps |
20% |
8% |
41% |
16% |
19% |
5% |
66 |
Individuals |
14% |
6% |
41% |
16% |
19% |
5% |
461 |
Total number |
88 |
49 |
236 |
90 |
124 |
44 |
631 |
Residents' Preferences
Winchester |
Andover |
Whitehill /Bordon |
Andover + Whitehill/Bordon |
Shared among all |
Don't know/not sure | |
Central Hants and New Forest |
9% |
7% |
34% |
14% |
25% |
11% |
South Hampshire |
6% |
5% |
30% |
9% |
23% |
27% |
North Hampshire |
4% |
4% |
24% |
9% |
17% |
42% |
Whole County Council Area |
6% |
6% |
30% |
10% |
22% |
26% |
Land supply to meet the preferred option
(Totals for 20 years 2006 - 2026)
District |
Existing planning permissions and provision in Local Plans |
Anticipated additional brownfield urban capacity |
Greenfield allocations required additional to the Local Plan |
Total |
Basingstoke and Deane (part) |
Together these amount to 500 |
100 |
600 | |
East Hampshire |
1,600 |
2,800 |
0 |
4,400 |
Hart |
Together these amount to 100 |
0 |
100 | |
New Forest |
900 |
2,300 |
0 |
3,200 |
Test Valley |
2,700 |
1,700 |
600 |
5,000 |
Winchester |
1,000 |
3,000 |
0 |
4,000 |
NB: All figures have been rounded to the nearest 100
1. PROFILE OF CENTRAL HAMPSHIRE AND NEW FOREST
1.1 Central Hampshire and the New Forest contains some of the most beautiful, diverse and biologically rich countryside in Britain. The countryside acts as an important natural resource, contributing to economic prosperity and the quality of life. Many areas are highly valued locally for their landscape, biodiversity and accessible recreational opportunities. Around half of the land area is National Park/ proposed National Park or an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB);conservation designations cover additional areas. Winchester and Andover are the two main towns in this area but there are also a number of smaller market towns, mainly within New Forest and East Hampshire Districts.
1.2 Between the two urban concentrations of northern and southern Hampshire lies a broad belt of open downland which is of great county and regional significance and where development has generally (with the exception of Andover) been small scale. Much of this area is included within the proposed South Downs National Park or the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. There are also a number of areas of national and international nature conservation importance - Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) - particularly around Bordon/ Whitehill and in the river valleys.
1.3 Winchester and Andover are the two main towns within this area. Winchester is a historic town and is an important tourist, employment and administrative centre with good road and/ or rail links to Southampton, Portsmouth, Bournemouth, Basingstoke, Reading and London. Andover has grown significantly in the last 50 years and is more self contained than Winchester. It has good road and rail links with Basingstoke and London. The market towns of Alton and Petersfield in East Hampshire provide shopping and other facilities in the eastern part of this area.
1.4 In the southern part of this area many people travel to the urban areas of South Hampshire or to Winchester for work, shopping and other facilities. There is also some commuting from Winchester to South Hampshire and London. In the northern part of the area some people travel to Basingstoke for work and sub regional shopping facilities. They also travel from Hart and East Hampshire to the Blackwater Valley, Surrey and London. There is some in-commuting into the area from Surrey, but the only part of Central Hampshire with significant net in-commuting is Winchester. Most of these commuters come from Southern Hampshire where house prices are generally lower. The community information is in Annex D.
1.5 South West Hampshire is dominated by the New Forest national park, located between the conurbations of Southampton to the east, and Bournemouth and Poole to the west, the latter being located within the South-West region. Almost all of the undeveloped area between the National Park and the coast is either designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or as Green Belt. Most of the New Forest National Park is also an area of international importance for nature conservation.
1.6 The towns of Lymington, New Milton and Ringwood provide shops and services for this area, but many people travel outside the area to Southampton or Bournemouth/ Dorset for employment or shopping purposes. However, New Forest district is the most self contained district in workplace terms with 72% of its jobs filled by local workers.
2.1 The Assembly issued a brief for the work in January 2005, which set out the broad process to be followed and the information which should be taken into account. A supplementary brief was issued in April 2005 which revised the process and timetable for the work, including a requirement that the County Council should consult the public before submitting its recommendations to the Assembly. More detailed guidance on the technical work to be undertaken was issued by the Assembly in May 2005, and then in August 2005, guidance was issued on the format of the documents to be submitted to the Assembly.
2.2 In anticipation of the issuing of the initial brief, technical work began in November 2004 in respect of Central Hampshire and New Forest, as at the time, the work was required to be completed by mid April 2005. Work was well underway by the time the supplementary brief and detailed guidance were issued in April and May respectively, but the approach being followed at that time and subsequently in respect of Central Hampshire and New Forest, was broadly in line with that Assembly advice.
2.3 Throughout, the work has been progressed by the County Council in close co-operation with all the District Councils within the area. A joint group of officers from all the authorities has overseen the technical work, punctuated by workshops to which representatives of the Assembly's social, environmental and economic partners were invited. Joint meetings of members of all the authorities were held at key stages; to approve the options for consultation and to consider the results of the consultation. Since April 2005 when the shadow New Forest National Park Authority came into existence, representatives of that body have been invited to all the officer and member meetings.
2.4 A report to the Regional Planning Committee on 8 November 2004 set out a list of the information to be considered in undertaking this work. Drawing on that list, the following information was collated:
· Outstanding housing commitments
· Vacancies within the existing housing stock
· Assessments of urban housing potential
· International and national designations relating to intrinsic land quality - SPA, SSSI, National Parks, AONB
· Other strategic constraints - flood risk areas, Green Belt, Gaps etc
· Housing market areas
· Zero net and past trend in migration demographic projections
· Economic/labour demands forecasts
· Affordable housing needs
· Transport infrastructure, including congestion, existing and planned capacity, potential and timing
· Accessibility - current and potential
· Water supply and waste water
· Other utilities
· Social infrastructure
· Strategically significant opportunities on public land
· Deliverability and phasing
It was recognised that this information needed to be collected at sub District level and for individual towns wherever possible.
2.5 At an early stage in the work, it was recognised that there was a substantial amount of land and potential sites already in the planning pipeline. This included sites with planning permission for housing, sites earmarked for that purpose in adopted and draft local plans, and other sites within urban areas which are expected to become available for housebuilding within urban areas (urban capacity). In Spring 2005, it was estimated these could provide for around 14,000 new homes between 2006 and 2026. For more details see annex A. That figure excluded the reserve housing provision in the Hampshire Structure Plan, as it was felt that development of those reserve sites should be included in the options for consultation.
2.6 In July 2005, the Assembly submitted Part One of the South East Plan to the Government. That submission included an overall housebuilding figure for Central Hampshire and New Forest of 800 new homes per annum 2006 - 2026. Over the 20 years of the plan, this would be a total of 16,000 new dwellings.
2.7 On the basis that existing sites and urban capacity would account for 14,000 of these, `new' sites needed to be identified for only 2,000 dwellings. Options were then formulated for providing those 2,000 dwellings.
2.8 Specific constraints and opportunities within each part district were considered in the process of option appraisal, including all the factors listed in the Assembly's guidance note. The constraints identified included Green Belt, National Park/ proposed National Park, environmental designations, flood risk, highways capacity and congestion, and public transport availability. Consideration was given to housing markets, deliverability, community aspirations and strategic sites.
2.9 Research undertaken into the shops and services available in the main settlements in Central Hampshire and New Forest and their degree of self-containment, concluded that Andover and Winchester should have the priority for expansion, followed by Alton, Whitehill, Ringwood and Petersfield. See Annexe E.
2.10 Within these constraints and opportunities, a wide range of possible locations for housing development were examined including the Structure Plan reserve housing sites, sites identified in draft local plans for possible development beyond 2011, and Ministry of Defence sites likely to be released during the plan period. In general, all were considered relatively sustainable, either because they were adjacent to main towns with facilities and services or because they made use of a brownfield site which was likely to become available in the plan period. In addition they would not breach international, national or county level environmental designations.
2.11 The possibility of a new town was given some preliminary consideration because it had been suggested by the panel which conducted the last Structure Plan Examination in Public. However a new town would need to be bigger than 2,000 dwellings in order to be sustainable and it would also be necessary for a regional need for it to be identified in the region wide strategy. In the absence of that identified regional requirement, it was considered that a new town would be inappropriate given the level of additional development required.
2.12 Various statutory authorities and infrastructure providers were consulted about the proposed options to ensure that there were no insurmountable obstacles to development and the options were deliverable by 2026. (Meetings were held with the Home Builders Federation, Registered Social Landlords, Highways Agency, Environment Agency, Southern Water, English Nature, Wildlife Trust, South West Trains, and Primary Care Trusts).
2.13 The Assembly's brief for this work required consideration of housing market areas (HMAs). Central Hampshire and New Forest includes parts of three HMAs. Most of the area is either within the North Hampshire- M3 HMA or the South Hampshire HMA. Andover is within the North Hampshire- M3 HMA, Winchester in the South Hampshire HMA close to the boundary with the North Hampshire -M3 HMA. Bordon/ Whitehill is in the Guildford/ Woking HMA close to the boundary with the North Hampshire - M3 HMA. Demographic and housing information is generally only available for District Council areas and not for HMAs. For that reason, and because of the disparate geography of HMAs within Central Hampshire and New Forest, it was concluded that HMAs were of limited value in helping to decide the distribution of housing, other than to suggest that it should be distributed amongst all the housing market areas in order to meet local needs.
2.14 Five options - set out on page 9 - were agreed for public consultation. The strengths and weaknesses of each option were identified and included in the consultation document, but no preferences were expressed between the options at that stage.
2.15 The options for consultation was virtually finalised when the Assembly decided to amend the boundary of the Western Corridor and Blackwater Valley sub region. The amendment resulted in a mainly rural part of Hart District being transferred to Central Hampshire and New Forest. As the only settlement of any significant size is Odiham, it was considered that this change was unlikely to have any significant impact on the options for development. It was therefore decided not to unpick the options in order to include that part of Hart District.
2.16 The Assembly is undertaking the Sustainability Appraisal of the South East Plan, but to assist in that process has asked the sub-regional authorities to complete proformas which assess the options against the criteria being used in the Appraisal process. The Assembly has also asked the County Council to take account of the assessment which emerges from proformas in making its recommendations to the Assembly.
2.17 The proformas show that the options that include development at Whitehill/Bordon perform less well in respect of the appraisal criteria than the other options. Although the development at Whitehill/Bordon is likely to be on brownfield land which scores positively in the appraisal, there are possible conflicts with the Special Protection Area adjacent to the town and other Natura 2000 sites while its location means there is a greater likelihood of travel by car. The remaining options perform relatively similarly, with each option having slightly different strengths and weaknesses.
2.18 It was more difficult to assess the option of sharing the development around the Districts because unlike the other options, the locations for additional development were not specified in the consultation document. However for the purposes of the appraisal, it was assumed that the locations chosen could result in more car based journeys, they may not be as accessible to services and facilities and could have an impact on biodiversity. On that basis, the options of locating all the 2,000 new homes at Winchester or Andover performed slightly better than the option of sharing the development around the Districts.
Option 1 - Winchester (development at Barton Farm) This option would mean the development of 2,000 dwellings on the Winchester City (north) Major Development Area (also known as Barton Farm). In view of the high demand for housing in Winchester it was envisaged that this option would provide a substantial number of new affordable dwellings. The site is a short distance from the city centre. Good public transport is available in Winchester including a main railway station. Option 2- Andover This option would mean development of land at Andover which has already been identified in the Local Plan for possible development after 2011. The land is a short distance from the town centre. Good public transport could be made available and there is a railway station at Andover. This would be in addition to the large amount of house building already definitely proposed at Andover in the draft Local Plan; Option 3 -Whitehill/Bordon This option would mean 2,000 dwellings being built at Whitehill/Bordon where the Ministry of Defence (MoD) may release surplus, mainly previously used, land for redevelopment. Housing development here would avoid the need to build on green fields elsewhere. It could help provide the shops and facilities which the town currently lacks. However, the development might have a detrimental impact on nearby internationally important nature conservation sites (Special Protection Areas). It is not yet certain that the Ministry of Defence will declare any land surplus and a decision on this is not expected until the middle of 2006. Option 4 -Andover and Whitehill/Bordon This option would involve some additional development at both Andover and Whitehill/ Bordon, but on a smaller scale in each town than envisaged in options 2 and 3. The advantages and disadvantages would be similar to those in options 2 and 3, although a smaller amount of development at Whitehill/Bordon is likely to have less impact on the important sites for nature conservation. On the other hand, it will not significantly improve shopping, other facilities or public transport. Option 5- Shared amongst all the districts This option would mean the modest expansion of a larger number of settlements across the area, with the 2,000 dwellings spread as follows: East Hampshire District (600); Winchester District (600); Test Valley Borough (600); Basingstoke and Deane Borough (100); New Forest District (100). The development proposed in each option was in addition to the 14,000 or so new dwellings which would be built on existing sites and on potential new sites within urban areas. All the options envisaged little house building outside existing urban areas in New Forest District, reflecting the extent of the New Forest National Park. Very few new properties were suggested in Basingstoke & Deane and Hart Districts in all the options as only a small part of each is within Central Hampshire and New Forest. |
3.1 The Regional Assembly is required to underpin the formulation of the South East Plan through an ongoing process of Sustainability Appraisals. An Integrated Regional Framework was developed by the Assembly in consultation with stakeholders. This Framework is used to develop an assessment form which is completed at each stage of the plan formulation process to inform decision making.
3.2 Although the Assembly is undertaking the Sustainability Appraisal of the South East Plan including the sub-regional policies, it has asked the sub-regional authorities to assist with that work by completing a set of proformas which evaluate the consultation options for housebuilding against 25 objectives set out in the Integrated Regional Framework. SEERA has asked the sub-regional authorities to take account of the findings of the proforma in reaching their recommendations on the District-level housing figures.
3.3 The 25 objectives are grouped on the proforma under four broad groupings
1) Social Progress
2) Protection of the Environment
3) Use of Natural Resources
4) Economic Growth
3.4 Forms have been completed for each area of Hampshire to assess the consultation options. Each consultation option and the preferred option has been "scored" against each of the criteria. The forms for each area of Hampshire are in the appendix.
3.5 The forms have been completed by a dedicated team of County Council officers working together to ensure consistency of approach. Each District Council has been consulted on the forms and feedback has been reviewed and incorporated where appropriate by the dedicated team.
3.6 The findings of the appraisal forms and the scoring of the 25 criteria must be treated with caution. Some of the criteria rely on the assessment team taking a view on future behaviour patterns of residents or on national policy outcomes. For example the likelihood of development in one area compared with another being more or encourage greater educational attainment must remain a largely subjective judgement. It must also be recognised that many of the factors identified in the criteria can only be indirectly influenced by the planning system.
3.7 This methodology can only be used as a tool to assess the advantages and disadvantages of applying a particular strategy. It cannot be used as a simple scoring system whereby the scores are added to identify the "best" or most sustainable option. For example if more weight were to be applied to economic growth considerations than, say, protection of the environment, then the evaluation of the scores would need to be adjusted.
3.8 These considerations do not justify dismissing the appraisal findings altogether; rather that the limitations of the appraisal process being used by SEERA must be recognised with the appraisal being just one factor to be considered in selecting the preferred option.
3.9 Reservations must be expressed over the robustness and integrity of the approach being followed by SEERA in preparing the Sustainability Appraisal. It is debatable whether it satisfies the relevant Regulations and at best represents the bare minimum that could be done. The approach of using identical criteria for assessing draft sub-regional policies for distinctively different sub-regions with different scales of development allocations and varying associated impacts can be questioned, together with the extent to which the results of the appraisal are actually leading to changes in the draft strategy and policies (the latter being in part also a consequence of the very fast timetable for plan preparation). Undertaking a sustainability appraisal to a satisfactory standard is a statutory requirement, so these shortcomings could leave the appraisal process and indeed the whole South East Plan open to legal challenge.
3.10 In summary, the five options for Central Hampshire and New Forest 'perform' against the 25 criteria as follows. The options that include development at Whitehill/Bordon perform less well in respect of the appraisal criteria than the other options. Although the development at Whitehill/Bordon is likely to be on brownfield land which scores positively in the appraisal, there are possible conflicts with the Special Protection Area adjacent to the town and other Natura 2000 sites while its location means there is a greater likelihood of travel by car. The remaining options perform relatively similarly, with each option having slightly different strengths and weaknesses.
3.11 It was more difficult to assess the option of sharing the development around the Districts because unlike the other options, the locations for additional development were not specified in the consultation document. However for the purposes of the appraisal, it was assumed that the locations chosen could result in more car based journeys, they may not be as accessible to services and facilities and could have an impact on biodiversity. On that basis, the options of locating all the 2,000 new homes at Winchester or Andover performed slightly better than the option of sharing the development around the Districts.
4. OVERVIEW OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
4.1 The public consultation documents contained a reply-paid questionnaire to assist responses. The questionnaire enabled respondents to indicate which of the options they preferred and included space in which additional comments could be added. This section of the report summarises the preferences expressed by stakeholders and residents, and the additional comments made. A full explanation of the consultation process is set out in the separate Statement of Consultation.
4.2 The District Councils did not confine themselves to indicating a single preferred option but stated whether they supported or opposed each of the five options. All the districts who expressed an opinion, except East Hampshire, support or would be content with Option 5 (additional housing spread between all the districts).
4.3 East Hampshire District Council support Options 1 and 2 (development in Winchester or Andover) and object to the other Options (Options 1 and 2 give East Hampshire the lowest housing requirement).
4.4 Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council support a housing figure of 30 dwellings per annum (Option 5).
4.5 New Forest District Council has no strong preference between the Options.
4.6 Hart District Council made no comments on the Options for Central Hampshire and New Forest.
4.7 Test Valley Borough Council support the continued development of Andover and Options 4 and 5 (additional development split between Andover and Bordon/ Whitehill or development spread between all the Districts). It wishes to reserve its position on Option 2 (additional development at Andover) until it has considered the Inspector's Report on the Local Plan Inquiry.
4.8 Winchester prefers Option 5 but suggests that the Option should be clarified so that it refers to spreading the allocation amongst the Districts involved (not necessarily in the locations listed in Options 1-4).
4.9 East Hampshire District Council objects to the Options which involve development at Bordon/Whitehill because there is no certainty, at this stage, that the land will become available for development. A decision on the future of Defence training in Bordon will not be made until mid 2006. It considers that the South East Plan should recognise the possible development opportunities in the town but any housing figures should be ring fenced for provision in and around the town only. It considers that if the land does not come forward at Bordon then neither the District or other Central Hampshire authorities should be expected to make up the shortfall. East Hampshire District Council also requests that further work is carried out to identify a housing figure for the South Downs National Park.
Key Stakeholders Preferences
4.10 The Highways Agency do not wish to express particular support for any of the Options, but they would expect that the impacts of all the Options upon the trunk road network will be assessed.
4.11 Thames Water believe that Bordon Sewage Treatment Works can accommodate the wastewater flows from an additional 400 dwellings, but any amount above this would require detailed investigation. Consequently, the Options that direct less development to Whitehill and Bordon are more likely to be within the environmental capacity of the receiving watercourse, and require less upgrade/development of the Bordon Sewage Treatment Works.
4.12 English Nature stress the importance of securing the investment in infrastructure prior to development under any of the Options for Central Hampshire and the New Forest, however they are also very sceptical whether the size of development proposed under any of the Options is large enough to attract the level of investment needed.
4.13 The Home Builders Federation is concerned that the numbers for this area are too low; the requirement to provide for housing needs in Winchester, Andover and Petersfield can only be met by a higher overall figure with accompanied infrastructure commitments.
4.14 The Whitehill / Bordon Opportunity Steering Group is especially keen to see any figure for the Whitehill and Bordon area 'ring-fenced', owing to the uncertainty over whether and/or when the Ministry of Defence will pull out of the locality (otherwise the 2,000 homes would have to be spread across the rest of Central Hampshire, placing undue pressure on East Hampshire).
4.15 The Hampshire Greenfield Alliance is more supportive of spreading a small numbers of houses between villages and settlements across the area, with key amenities ensured in each locality.
4.16 The Campaign to Protect Rural England feel that most if not all of the future growth allocated to this sub-region can be accommodated on brownfield land. It also feels that the Whitehill/Bordon opportunity should be grasped, particularly as all the alternative options involve development on greenfields. However, It also believes that any allocation to this location should be `ring fenced' so that if the Ministry of Defence changes its plans, the allocation will not be given to the rest of East Hampshire which is largely covered by national countryside designations. Therefore, any Whitehill/Bordon allocation should be accompanied by a reserve site allocation at Andover, they say.
4.17 The Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust feel that under Option 1, if Barton Farm was to be developed, then this must be part of a comprehensive series of investments securing or enhancing a broad corridor of land centred on the Itchen Valley for a range of sustainable development objectives. It points out that it has already made objections to the proposed Major Development Areas at Andover as these are failing to deliver the range of sustainable development objectives required under the Structure Plan's policy MDA1. The Trust feel that greenfield development at Bordon/Whitehill under Options 3 and 4 is unlikely to be sustainable, and therefore are objected to.
Option 1
4.18 The Environment Agency and English Nature both see the main area of concern for this Option as water availability and quality, and the potential impacts on the River Itchen SAC and SSSI. It is vitally important under this scenario that investment is secured to enable the necessary infrastructure to be implemented in advance of construction to safeguard the River Itchen. The occurrence of groundwater flooding in this area is also a concern.
Option 2
4.19 The Environment Agency sees the main area of concern for this Option as infrastructure provision in terms of water quality. Issues may be more localised to particular Sewage Treatment Works so the effects are hard to judge using District level housing figures, but of concern are the growth levels above existing allocations around the locations of Andover, Stockbridge, Kings Sombourne, Chilbolton and Harestock.
Option 3
4.20 English Nature advises the County Council to consider the provision of suitable alternative open space when assessing the suitability of Whitehill/Bordon to accommodate 2,000 new homes. It is also aware that there is a high degree of uncertainty relating to the disposal of Ministry of Defence land at Whitehill/Bordon. English Nature therefore consider it unwise for the South East Plan to rely on the release of such land within the plan period, and furthermore do not support this Option until there is certainty regarding the timing of release.
Option 4
4.21 English Nature believe that although it may appear that a smaller amount of development at Whitehill/Bordon might result in a reduced impact on the surrounding sites of high ecological value (SPA and SACs), the level of development proposed under Option 4 might be insufficient to generate the necessary green infrastructure which would absorb recreation pressure away from the SPA and SACs. Therefore English Nature do not support Option 4.
Option 5
4.22 English Nature reiterate its comments relating to water quality and quantity in the River Itchen SAC and advise HCC to take this into account when considering development near Winchester under Option 5.
Overall Stakeholder Preferences
4.23 Responses on the Central Hampshire and New Forest Options were received from 631 stakeholders comprising; 61 Parish and Town councils, 43 development interests, 66 environmental/amenity/social groups, and 461 individuals. Overall, 37% of respondents who made a preference chose Whitehill/Bordon as the location for most of the housing, followed by the Option to spread housing amongst other main settlements. The remaining responses were split fairly equally between identifying Andover or Winchester as preferred Options as can be seen from Figure 1.
Figure 1: Stakeholder Preferences - Central Hampshire and New Forest Options
Residents Preferences
4.24 The Option which received most support amongst residents countywide was to locate the 2,000 homes at Whitehill/Bordon (30% of the overall response), followed by a spread of homes between the main settlements in Central Hampshire and New Forest (22%). Support is even higher amongst Central Hampshire and New Forest residents (34%), followed by a share of all locations across the main settlements. There is less support for the 2,000 homes to go specifically to Winchester or Andover as can be seen from Figure 2.
Figure 2: Residents Preferences -Central Hampshire and New Forest Options
Alternative options suggested
4.25 15 respondents argued that development should be encouraged to other parts of the country, especially the north, whilst a number of respondents put forward other possible locations for development. 5 respondents want a more extensive use of Ministry of Defence sites, such as Worthy Down and Bushfield Camp, whilst 4 respondents and 2 from North Hampshire argue for the development around Micheldever Station. There was also mention of the Cemex site at Fordingbridge and the ASDA store site and the old Kenning/Sixt site at Andover.
4.26 Sipson Gray Limited suggest that development in East Hampshire should be centred around the A3 and towards Liphook, rather than at Bordon. The South East Consortium back the proposals for development at Micheldever Station as well as focussing growth on existing settlements like Andover. White Young Green Planning on behalf of Mr Robert Hickman CBE, promote urban extensions and large scale developments in general but in particular the MDAs around Andover. The same firm also favour large urban extensions, especially at Alton and Petersfield on the behalf of 5 clients.
4.27 Taylor Woodrow suggest that more development should be encouraged in the Central Hampshire part of Hart District as well as increasing development at Winchester through the release of an MDA. Cemex UK Materials Limited promote the attractiveness of the Cemex site in Fordingbridge, whilst Peel Investments North suggest a site of 1,650 dwellings on their land south of Andover, near the urban area of Bere Hill.
4.28 Boyer Planning on behalf of George Wimpey and Taylor Woodrow suggest an MDA on their clients land East of Icknield Way at Andover, which has already been allocated. They suggest that this area could have its capacity increased. Cala Homes (South) advocate the release of Winchester City North MDA whilst Redrow Homes (Southern) also suggest more housing provision in Winchester at sites already identified in the Local Plan.
Stakeholders other comments
4.29 Other stakeholders, individuals and development interests responding to the consultation hold a number of concerns at how the figures have been arrived at, and the assumptions made whilst compiling them. Many individuals feel that too much is being demanded of Hampshire, which contrasts markedly with the developers & consultants who feel that the housing figures are not high enough. However they do agree on the view that Options are too limited, and a more flexible approach might be more realistic.
4.30 The biggest issue to come through is the concern at the inadequacy of existing infrastructure, let alone the consequences of any increase in development (this includes worries with public services, the capacity of water supplies & treatment, and other vital utilities). This concern is held predominantly by individuals and parish/town councils, and less so by developers. 73 respondents were especially concerned about infrastructure and that development must be preceded by the provision of infrastructure (this is reflected in arguments for development based around existing transport networks, and expanding existing settlements that already have good utility services).
4.31 A comment by a number of developers and consultants has been made towards the poor assumptions regarding economic development, in particular the ability of the proposed numbers to address the social or economic requirements of a growing region. 3 developers and consultants are of the view that all existing reserve housing provision in Hampshire should be included in the housing supply figures.
4.32 A few people are adamant that Hampshire as well as the South East overall is overcrowded and cannot take any more growth. The suggestion to concentrate new development in other parts of England (e.g. northern regions) is a common theme in those responses.
4.33 27 responses from across the categories call for brownfield development ahead of any greenfield releases, with additional calls for environmental protection (both natural and historic). Although there was support for high density housing and its contribution to minimising land take, this is countered by a smaller number who regard high density housing as something which leads to a lower quality of life (as well as concerns at excessive infilling policies, and contaminated land issues). The opportunity to renovate existing housing stock was also mentioned as a further Option by individuals.
4.34 The need to clear the shortfall in affordable housing is where all groups were in absolute agreement, with a particular emphasis on matching local housing needs to the particular locality (e.g. provision for the elderly, village housing, and key workers).
4.35 The few responses regarding the New Forest reflected support for there only being provision for local housing need, but with it the concern that peripheral towns would be put under pressure to accept housing (because of limited development within the National Park).
4.36 Building on flood plains was firmly rejected by a few individuals, and where a comment was received on greenfield sites there is broad opposition to building on them. The only instance where it may be acceptable is when the provision through brownfield sites proves over-optimistic or where we build on low quality agricultural land.
4.37 A minority of responses also pointed out that strategic gaps were important, but at the same time there was specific support for enhancing the viability of small towns and rural villages by allowing appropriate development. It is a shared view across the categories that villages and towns need to receive some housing to sustain their vitality and viability in future.
4.38 16 of the responses were critical about the consultation process and/or the structure of the consultation document. 14 others from all categories welcomed the opportunity for consultation, but felt that they did not have sufficient information available to make a proper judgement.
4.39 There is a strong resistance from a minority of the respondents towards the South East Plan and the Regional Assembly; namely in criticism about housing figures being imposed on Hampshire from an unelected body, and to what extent that body is accountable. The lack of a clear sustainability appraisal prior to these figures was also the subject of several comments.
4.40 Of those who made additional comments, individuals, parish councils and environmental groups were against large-scale development at Winchester (Barton Farm), whilst developers and consultants were supportive of this Option.
4.41 Conversely, the individuals and parish councils who were supportive of growth at Bordon/Whitehill were countered by developers and consultants who are of the opinion that it is not a sustainable location. A number of responses requested that Whitehill/Bordon be treated as a special case, in view of the fact that the MoD's withdrawal will not be known until mid to late 2006. The idea of spreading development around is supported by a few in view of its reduced local impact.
4.42 Written comments included those who felt that the six Options in the consultation document were not sufficient, and a number were concerned that MoD sites should be pushed forward for housing development. Other locations were suggested, including Micheldever, Liss and Alton. There was particular support for the opportunity to spread development across all the Options if MoD land was not forthcoming.
4.43 Developers and consultants are of the opinion that Central Hampshire and New Forest can deliver more than is being asked of it.
Residents Comments
4.44 There is a clear request that any development be accompanied by improvements in infrastructure, and there is a view that the county is already overcrowded (especially noted in the congested transport system). The ability of water supplies and treatment systems to cope is questioned, while protection of greenfield land is a common worry.
4.45 In tandem with these comments is the request for the more efficient use of brownfield sites. Concern is expressed at the levels of housing near to where people currently live, and the requirement for growth is questioned by some.
4.46 Affordable housing and the availability of housing for local people is high on the list, as are calls for the provision of further amenities and facilities; these include school provision, sports facilities and health services like hospitals and clinics.
5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON NATIONAL PARKS, AONBs, SPAs and SACs
5.1 Central Hampshire and New Forest includes most of the designated New Forest National Park and a significant part of the proposed South Downs National Park. It also includes the East Hampshire Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (much of which is also proposed for inclusion in the South Downs National Park) and part of the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding National Beauty.
5.2 Section 62 of the Environment Act 1995 places a duty on all relevant authorities, including planning authorities, to have regard to the statutory purposes of National Parks1 when exercising or performing any function that could affect land in the Parks. Relevant authorities are expected to be able to demonstrate that they have fulfilled this duty.
5.3 This section also states "if it appears that there is a conflict between those purposes, (a relevant authority) shall attach greater weight to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area comprised in the National Park." This indicates that where there is a conflict between the two main park purposes, the first purpose should prevail.
5.4 An identical duty has been placed on relevant bodies by Section 85 (1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 in respect of the purpose of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) to conserve and enhance its natural beauty.
5.5 Much of the New Forest, together with areas of land adjacent to Bordon/Whitehill, has been classified as a Special Protection Area (SPA) in accordance with the European Community Directive 79/409 on the Conservation of Wild Birds (commonly referred to as the Birds Directive) to afford protection to the habitats which support a number of rare and vulnerable birds species listed in Annex 1 to the Directive.
5.6 In assessing the extent to which the consultation options impact on the National Parks, AONBs, SPAs and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), consideration needs to be given to:-
· Development pressure in and around the designated areas.
· Managing recreation demand, including the need to provide recreational sites near to centres of population as alternatives to the New Forest National Park and other areas of nature conservation importance.
· Sustaining New Forest Commoning.
· Potential impacts on the New Forest Special Protection Area (SPA).
· Potential impacts on those parts of the Wealden Heaths phase II Special Protection Area (SPA) near Bordon /Whitehill .
· Disturbance and wear of tear of heathland vegetation are two factors affecting the quality of the habitats upon which the Annex 1 birds depend.
There are three ways that impacts could affect the designated areas:-
1) Direct
2) Indirect and
3) Cumulative indirect
5.7 Designated in 2005, the New Forest is England's newest National Park. It is the second smallest by size but the second largest by population. Some 30% of all jobs in the Park are tourism related. Tourists to the area fall into three categories - day visitors(travelling from outside New Forest District for the day returning the same day), local visitors (people who live within the district but travel to another part of the district for recreation) and staying visitors.
5.8 The New Forest Sport and Recreation Study 1996 found that by far the greatest number of visits to the Forest are made by local people. It estimated that there were 18 million visits per annum to the New Forest by local people - 75% of the total number of visits. Most local visits are made by people who travel regularly (at least once a week) from within or just outside the Forest. More than 80% of these residents use the Forest for informal recreation. About half of the visits are made by people living in Totton and the Waterside, Lymington and New Milton.
5.9 Potential direct impacts include new housing development within existing towns and villages and the possibility of a small amount of additional development adjacent to existing settlements (not expected to be more than 100 dwellings - which could be provided on the reserve housing site at Ringwood) and the associated roads, cables and pipelines. To date none of the service providers, the Highways Agency or local highways authorities have identified a need for any infrastructure to support the emerging strategy for Central Hampshire and New Forest that would directly impact on the National Park. New housing will need to be in appropriate locations where any negative impacts on nature conservation and the National Park are minimised and well designed to ensure that its visual impact is appropriate for the National Park.
5.10 Indirect impacts of concern include impacts on the heathland habitats of the New Forest and their associated species. Residential development in the vicinity of heathland sites such as the New Forest inevitably results in increased demands for recreation as people choose the Forest's heathland landscapes for dog walking, horse riding etc.
5.11 Such activities can detrimentally affect the New Forest by a) wear and tear of sensitive heathland vegetation and erosion of heathland soils, for example by horseriding and b) disturbance of rare and vulnerable ground-nesting birds, thereby affecting their breeding success.
5.12 Disturbance of ground-nesting birds can result in the adult birds leaving the nest, thereby leaving the chicks or eggs exposed to predators. Disturbance can also cause delays in adult birds returning to the nest with food for their chicks.
5.13 Furthermore, domestic cats kept as pets by people living in houses near to the New Forest may hunt on the heathlands and predate ground-nesting birds.
5.14 Of particular concern is disturbance to / predation of woodlark and nightjar which nest on the ground and which are included in Annex 1 to the EC Birds Directive and which are two of the species for which the New Forest has been classified as a Special Protection Area in accordance with this Directive.
5.15 Much of the New Forest has also been designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) in accordance with the EC Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (commonly referred to as the Habitats Directive) as it contains a number of habitats and species listed in the Annexes to this Directive.
5.16 Similarly residential development in the vicinity of the New Forest has the potential to cause wear and tear of the heathland habitats, thereby detrimentally affecting the SAC.
5.17 English Nature advise that such concerns have been successfully expressed at a number of public inquiries (and during the Local Plan Review) in Hart District in relation to the Thames Basin Heaths SPA.
5.18 In summary, the potential impacts arise from:
5.19 It is the size of the resident population and not the number of dwellings per se which determines any impact on the National Park due to recreational pressure. As no population increase is expected in New Forest District despite the proposed housebuilding and given that survey data shows that most visitors to the park are local residents, this should mean that no significant impact on the National Park arises from the proposed housebuilding.
5.20 The six different consultation options put forward for Central Hampshire and New Forest meant housebuilding 2006-2026 within the following ranges:
Part District |
Existing commitments & urban capacity |
Total Housebuilding provision |
Basingstoke |
500 |
500-600 |
East Hants |
3,700 |
3,700-5,700 |
Hart |
Less than 100 |
Less than 100 |
New Forest |
2,500 |
2,500-2,600 |
Test Valley |
4,100 |
4,100-6,100 |
Winchester |
3,200 |
3,200-5,200 |
Total |
14,000 |
16,000 |
5.21 It is clear from Figure 3 above that it is the number of people (and their pets) associated with the new development rather than the actual number of new homes planned that gives rise to concern over potential impacts.
5.22 Hampshire County Council has produced population projections for Central Hampshire and New Forest which take into account the ranges of housebuilding set out above. The projections shows that between 2006 and 2026 the population is not expected to change significantly; there is likely to be a very slight decrease in the population of about 1000 people. Figure 4 below shows the forecast population by district.
Part District |
Population 2006 |
Population change 2006-2026 |
% change 2006-2026 |
Basingstoke |
17,367 |
-600 to -300 |
- 4% to -2% |
East Hants |
90,329 |
-1,100 to 3,300 |
-1% to 4% |
Hart |
Figures too small to estimate | ||
New Forest |
102,850 |
- 3,500 (est) to - 3,800 |
- 3% to - 4% |
Test Valley |
71,274 |
2,300 to 6,700 |
3% to 10% |
Winchester |
72,523 |
-1,300 to 2,900 |
-2% to 4% |
Total |
354,343 |
-1,300 to -700 |
0% |
5.23 In Hart district the figures are too small to enable an accurate estimate. The population in Basingstoke and Deane and New Forest Districts is projected to decline with all the options. In Test Valley all the options are projected to mean an increase in population. In East Hampshire and Winchester Districts the options with the lowest amount of housing would result in a loss of population but it is projected that the options with the highest amount of housing could mean an increase in population of up to 4%.
5.24 Fewer people living in this area could also be expected to result in fewer dogs being walked in the National Park. The potential disturbance from cats as a result of new development would still remain, but only where the new development was less than 800m from the boundary of the SPA or SAC which have ground nesting birds present. As no specific locations for greenfield development have been identified it is not possible at this stage to say whether this is a significant issue. It could only be determined at the Local Development Framework (LDF) stage when development sites are identified. However, if required, up to 150 dwellings could be accommodated on a site at Ringwood which is identified as a reserve housing site in the adopted local plan.
5.25 Overall, therefore, the consultation options seem unlikely to result in any significant detrimental impact on the New Forest National Park.
East Hampshire AONB /proposed South Downs National Park and Wealdon Heath SPA
5.26 The outcome of the public inquiry held into the proposed South Downs National Park is expected in Spring 2006, after which the Government will decide whether to proceed with the proposed designation. At present the area within Hampshire forms the East Hampshire AONB, whilst the Park designation would include land to the west within Winchester district. The anticipated pressures on this area are very similar to the New Forest, although the nature conservation designations are less extensive. Figure 4 above shows that the proposed level of housing is projected to result in no significant change to the population over the whole area.
5.27 Potential direct impacts would be those arising from any new housing development within existing towns and villages and the possibility of a small amount of additional development adjacent to existing settlements and the associated roads, cables and pipelines. To date none of the service providers, the Highways Agency or local highways authorities have identified a need for any infrastructure to support the emerging strategy for Central Hampshire and New Forest that would directly impact on the proposed National Park. New housing will need to be in appropriate locations where any negative impacts on nature conservation and the proposed National Park are minimised and well designed to ensure that any visual impact on the AONB/ proposed National Park is appropriate (height and design of buildings, lighting etc)
5.28 There is a potential impact on the proposed South Downs National Park from additional housing development at Bordon/ Whitehill and the associated increased volume of traffic if that option were to be selected. Other smaller scale development in or close to the proposed National Park could also result in additional traffic passing through the area in order to get to work, school etc.
5.29 Recreational demands from new housing could have an impact on the proposed National Park, but the table above shows that overall the population will not change significantly and may decrease slightly. It is only if the option including Bordon /Whitehill is chosen that there is likely to be significant increase in the population in East Hampshire. The option including additional development at Winchester would result in a small increase in the population of that district which could impact on the western part of the proposed National Park.
5.30 Potential impacts on the Wealden Heath phase II SPA relate to residential development associated with household pets and increased recreational pressures. These are not likely to occur unless there is additional development at Bordon /Whitehill. A 1 km buffer is recommended by key ecological stakeholders around the Wealden Heath phase II SPA within which residential development should be avoided. Other suggested mitigation measures include the provision of alternative areas for recreation.
5.31 The potential impacts on the North Wessex Downs AONB are similar to those for the East Hampshire AONB. However it is not expected that there will be any significant amount of new development within the AONB. All the options are likely to result in an increase in the population of the northern part of Test Valley. The options with additional development at Andover would mean a significant increase in population. This may result in some increased recreation within the North Wessex Downs AONB and possibly some additional traffic across the AONB. Development at Andover is not likely to significantly detract from the natural beauty of the AONB.
5.32 The option with the highest level of house building in the part of Basingstoke and Deane which is within Central Hampshire and New Forest is likely to mean a small amount of additional housing development on greenfield sites, but a small loss in population there. It will be important to ensure that the location for any greenfield development is carefully chosen and the development well designed to avoid detracting from the natural beauty of the AONB.
6.1 Following analysis of the consultation responses, a new preferred hybrid option has been developed, sharing the development amongst all Districts, but with an increased amount of house building at Andover and correspondingly less in East Hampshire District. If Ministry of Defence land becomes available at Whitehill/Bordon, this would be advanced as an addition to Central Hampshire and New Forest's current total of 800 dwellings per annum. This approach would be in line with the preferences expressed by stakeholders, residents and the Borough/District Councils. It was endorsed by a joint meeting of Executive Members of the County and Borough/District Councils held on 11 November 2005.
6.2 In addition, it is necessary to allow for the implementation of existing planning permissions and other infilling within settlements in the Odiham /North Warnborough area which was transferred to Central Hampshire and New Forest from the Western Corridor and Blackwater Valley Sub-Region after the consultation options were drawn up.
6.3 On the above basis, the 2,000 dwellings would be shared as follows:
Basingstoke and Deane (part) |
100 |
East Hampshire (part) |
200 |
Hart (part) |
100 |
New Forest (part) |
100 |
Test Valley (part) |
1,000 |
Winchester (part) |
500 |
6.4 The preferred option is a modified version of the consultation option of sharing the 2,000 amongst all Districts, but in relation to the sustainability appraisal, is likely to perform better than the unmodified option. This is because there will be more housing in Andover which is a relatively sustainable location for development and less in East Hampshire where there is more likely to be conflicts with areas of nature conservation importance or the proposed South Downs National Park.
6.5 Subsequent to the joint Member meeting referred to above, updated information has become available on the supply of land already earmarked for house building. This erodes the 2,000 dwellings for which it was thought that new greenfield sites would be needed; the revised figure is 700. The updated figures show an increase in land supply in most Districts; a distribution which is in line with the preferred option above.
6.6 The updated figures mean that nearly all the new housing required by the preferred option could be accommodated on sites already allocated for development in adopted/draft Local Plans, with planning permission or within the estimates of urban capacity. The preferred option would require two Boroughs - Basingstoke and Deane and Test Valley - to identify additional greenfield land for development when they prepare their Local Development Frameworks. (See table in Annex E ). In the other Districts, new greenfield sites would only needed if the estimates for urban capacity turn out to have been over-optimistic.
6.7 The preferred option is unlikely to result in any significant change in the total population of this area. It is considered that the preferred option is likely to have less impact on the proposed South Downs National Park and the Wealden Heath phase II SPA than options 3, 4 and 5. As the housing figures in the options only differ by 100 dwellings in total for this part of New Forest district, the preferred option is unlikely to have a significantly different impact on the National Park, the SPA or the SAC . Estimates now suggest that the preferred option is unlikely to necessitate any additional development outside existing towns and villages in this part of New Forest district.
6.8 Translating the figures above means the following number of dwellings per annum would be provided in each part district:
Basingstoke and Deane (part) |
30 |
East Hampshire (part) |
200 |
Hart (part) |
5 |
New Forest (part) |
130 |
Test Valley (part) |
250 |
Winchester (part) |
185 |
Total |
800 |
Recommended district-level housing figures
District |
Sub-regions 2006-2026 |
Rest of county area 2006-2026 |
District Total 2006-2026 |
Basingstoke and Deane |
15,900 |
600 |
16,500 |
East Hampshire |
1,100 |
4,000 |
5,100 |
Hart |
3,900 |
100 |
4,000 |
New Forest |
1,538 |
2,600 |
4,138 |
Test Valley |
3,910 |
5,000 |
8,910 |
Winchester |
6,489 |
3,700 |
10,189 |
Totals |
16,000 |
48,837 |
1. Collecting information for areas below district level was difficult in some cases. For example the figures collected for The South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) in 2004 on urban potential gave figures for the larger towns, and we had also had information available for smaller towns but the potential from settlements with a population of under 4,000 was only available on a district wide basis. It was therefore decided to work out the large site urban capacity for each district partly within South Hampshire by comparing the urban capacity figures already produced for this area with urban capacity for each whole district which was estimated as part of the Policy H4 monitoring work.
2. Another area for which information was not readily available was outstanding commitments on small sites. These were available by whole district, for the categories of urban areas identified for the SEERA monitoring work 2004 or for individual sites. Because it was important for the figures for part districts to add to the correct total for the whole district and to avoid any double counting it was decided to use the percentages( based on past completions) used by officers working on South Hampshire to determine the percentage of small sites in each district which were in Central Hampshire and New Forest. Using all completions on small sites as a basis to estimate future supply from this source is considered more realistic than an estimate based only on completions on brownfield sites within the urban areas identified for monitoring purposes by SEERA. It is considered that the SEERA approach is likely to underestimate the future supply from small sites.
3. Work on assessing the amount of identified commitments and urban capacity was started well before the advice on the preparation of district level housing distribution was finalised in May 2005, however the sequential approach used was the same as that set out in Figure 1 of the Revised Advice on Preparing the District Level Housing Distribution. ((DTZ Pieda for SEERA, May 2005).
4. The data used is that for the year ending 31 March 2004 as this is available on a consistent basis in Hampshire. The calculations are made more complicated because in Central Hampshire and New Forest there are no whole districts, only part districts. When the boundaries for this work were first agreed Hart District was wholly within the Western Corridor sub -area; however as a result of an amendment made in Summer 2005 it is now partly within the central Hampshire and New Forest area. Because of the timing of this amendment, the calculations of `existing supply' do not take into account any supply from Hart. The part of Hart that is now within this area is rural, with Odiham the only settlement of any size. Any existing or potential supply will be small. The figures have not been re calculated.
5. Officers at Hampshire County Council examined the current housing supply. For each part district, the number of dwellings on large and small sites with planning permission or identified as baseline sites in local plans was established. The data relating to planning permissions and, allocations was provided by Hampshire County Council's Environment Department (monitoring information collected for all district councils in Hampshire). The total likely contribution from small sites for the period 2004-2026 was established based on past completions.
6. The potential from large urban capacity and windfall sites for the period 2004-2011 was estimated based on work already undertaken for the Structure Plan policy H4 monitoring paper which was collected from the district planning departments in September /October 2004, the subsequent findings of local plan inspectors and work undertaken in relation to South Hampshire. The Basingstoke and Deane estimate was based on past completions on previously developed land in Whitchurch. Estimates for urban capacity 2011-2026 were based on these figures. (It was considered that urban capacity 2011- 2026 would be slightly lower per annum than in the previous period as the easiest sites to develop would have been completed.)
7. Adding the figures together gave an estimate of total supply for the period 2004-2026. Two years average completions for each part district (based on average completions 1996-2004) have been deleted to give a figure for the supply available for the period 2006-26. This is equivalent to a+b+c for each district in Figure 1 of the advice note. The total was approximately 14,000 dwellings (equivalent to 700 per annum). (This figure excludes reserve sites, potential at Bordon-Whitehill and possible extension to Andover Major Development Area).
8. The housing supply figures were discussed with officers from the district councils to ensure that they considered them a reasonable estimate .for their area More detailed information about each component is given below.
Identified large sites
9. The figures for the net dwellings available on identified large sites (commitments) are based on site information from Housing Land Supply in Hampshire -Monitoring Information 2004 produced by Hampshire County Council. The figures have been revised to include changes to allocated sites since April 2004 in East Hampshire and New Forest following the publication of local plan inspector's reports/ local plan modifications. Planning permissions which are still subject to S106 agreements are not included as commitments. It is considered that all commitments are likely to be implemented by 2026.
Small sites
10 The number of dwellings likely to come forward on small sites is based on past completions. For all districts partly within Southern Hampshire the proportion of dwellings completed during the period 1996-03 within the sub area had already been calculated by officers working on the South Hampshire sub region. Ratios used for this work are as follows: East Hampshire 86% (i.e. 86% of all small site completions were within that part of East Hampshire outside of sub-regions); New Forest 73%, Test Valley 77% and Winchester 83%. The figure for Basingstoke and Deane (7%)was derived using number of planning permissions in Whitchurch and Overton compared to Basingstoke and Deane as a whole.
11 Figures used to calculate both the estimated number of planning permissions on small sites and the likely completions to 2026 are based on annual average completions in each district over the last 5 years assume that average levels of completions will not change over next 20 years i.e. no allowance for possible declining supply in New Forest and East Hants due to National Park designation or increase in completions due to higher densities being achieved.
12 For estimates of large site urban capacity to 2011, figures for all districts except Basingstoke were initially derived from comparing anticipated district-wide supply provided by districts in Hampshire's Policy H4 Monitoring 2005 returns with similar information provided by districts last Autumn on capacity within South Hampshire sub-region. Test Valley's figure is based on 40 per annum as stated at the local plan inquiry. The East Hampshire figure was reduced slightly to take into account the recommendations of the Local Plan Inspectors Report . The Basingstoke estimate was based on past completions on large brownfield sites in Whitchurch. Annual estimates for the period 2004-2011 were discounted by two years to avoid double counting with identified sites.
13 Figures for urban capacity on large sites 2011- 26 are produced by extending assumptions for supply anticipated over period 2004 - 2011. It has been assumed that the average annual large site urban capacity will be slightly lower during this period than prior to 2011.
Additional information on the components of housing supply
Winch-ester |
Andover |
Whitehill / Bordon |
Andover + Whitehill /Bordon |
Shared among all |
Don't Know |
Total Number | |
Parish + Town Councils |
8% |
10% |
30% |
16% |
26% |
10% |
61 |
Development interests |
16% |
21% |
9% |
5% |
33% |
16% |
43 |
Env/ Amenity/ Social Grps |
20% |
8% |
41% |
16% |
19% |
5% |
66 |
Individuals |
14% |
6% |
41% |
16% |
19% |
5% |
461 |
Total number |
88 |
49 |
236 |
90 |
124 |
44 |
631 |
Residents' Preferences
Winchester |
Andover |
Whitehill /Bordon |
Andover + Whitehill/Bordon |
Shared among all |
Don't know/not sure | |
Central Hants and New Forest |
9% |
7% |
34% |
14% |
25% |
11% |
South Hampshire |
6% |
5% |
30% |
9% |
23% |
27% |
North Hampshire |
4% |
4% |
24% |
9% |
17% |
42% |
Whole County Council Area |
6% |
6% |
30% |
10% |
22% |
26% |
ANNEX E: PROMOTING SELF-CONTAINED SETTLEMENTS CENTRAL HAMPSHIRE AND NEW FOREST
Aims and Objectives of Study
This study undertaken by consultants Colin Buchanan and Partners for Hampshire County Council sought to recommend optimum locations for new development in Hampshire which minimises the need to travel to reach facilities, i.e. promote the `self-containment' of settlements.
The study identified settlements which could increase population, whilst maintaining or improving their level of `self-containment' (in relation to access to services). The study did not identify where within each settlement that growth could/should take place. It also did not make judgements about the size or quality of the existing facilities.
_ Larger settlements tend to have more facilities overall than smaller settlements.
_ Stand-alone sub-regional and principal settlements have higher levels of facilities and lower levels of external accessibility.
_ There is no apparent relationship between settlement size and external accessibility - most accessible settlements being distributed evenly between the smallest and the largest settlements. This is broadly similar for both private and public transport.
_ There is a general relationship of smaller settlements with minimal facilities being `clustered' around larger settlements with better facilities.
_ Based on threshold ranges, settlements require a population of at least 12,000 in order to sustain facilities such as secondary schools, leisure centres and community centres.
_ A population of 25,000 or above is required to support significant national multiple retailers, supermarkets and major sports centres.
Settlement `Growth Choice' Categorisation
_ To achieve self-containment, a proposed development strategy should prioritise the larger towns with the highest access to local facilities and lowest external access to facilities.
_ Key trip purposes are shopping and personal business, followed by commuting. It is likely that only the largest towns (above 30,000) will offer sufficient local retailing facilities to satisfy most demands for this type of activity. Town of this size are also likely to justify extensive leisure facilities, possibly higher education and community facilities.
_ Only settlements above approx. 12,000 population, contain reasonable number of facilities which would encourage self-sufficiency, so settlements above this level should be developed in preference to smaller towns.
_ Settlements with a population in the region of 9,000 to 10,000 have a particularly poor (low) range of local facilities. Some of these settlements could be expanded by some 2,000 houses so as to be able to develop a better range of facilities. Even so the retail provision of such settlements would still be poor so the priority should be, when deciding to expand such sized settlements to use first those with good access (preferably public transport) to higher-order retail facilities.
Settlements should therefore be selected in the following order of priority:
1. Towns of 30,000 or above
a) Detached/outlying settlements followed by
b) Agglomeration settlements
2. Towns of above 12,000
a) Detached/outlying settlement areas (which have or could improve access to higher-order retail facilities) followed by
b) Agglomeration settlements
3. Other Towns
List of Settlements in the Central Hampshire and New Forest area, which can be grown in a way which fosters Self-containment
Order of Priority |
Category |
Settlements which fall into this category |
Population (2004) |
First |
1a) - Towns of 30,000 or above, detached/outlying settlements |
Andover Winchester City* |
38,484 32,381 |
Second |
1b) - Towns of 30,000 or above, agglomeration settlements |
||
Third |
2a) - Towns of above 12,000, detached/outlying settlement areas (which have or could improve access to higher-order retail facilities) |
Alton Town Whitehill** Ringwood Petersfield |
16,648 14,164 13,803 13,734 |
Fourth |
2b) - Towns of above 12,000, agglomeration settlements |
New Milton*** Lymington and Pennington |
24,770 14,395 |
Fifth |
3) - Other towns, detached settlements |
Bramshott and Liphook** Liss Fordingbridge Headley** New Arlesford Whitchurch Bransgore*** Overton Four Marks Brockenhurst Wellow Lyndhurst |
8,235 6,131 5,954 5,636 5,404 4,610 4,251 4,179 3,546 3,391 3,341 3,013 |
3) - Other towns, agglomeration settlements |
Hordle Milford on Sea Kings worthy Littleton Sway |
5,500 4,652 4,301 3,621 3,447 |
Notes:
* Winchester City is identified as detached outlying settlement because distant from large settlements but is located close to two villages, i.e. Kings Worthy and Littleton.
** Bramshott and Liphook/Headley/Whitehill agglomeration could be identified
*** Could be identified as part of the Bournemouth/Poole/Christchurch agglomeration