APPENDIX

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY

STRUCTURE PLAN 1996 - 2011 (REVIEW)

MONITORING REPORT 2002

This Monitoring Report of the Hampshire County Structure Plan 1996-2011 (Review) has been produced by the joint strategic planning authorities for Hampshire (Hampshire County Council, Portsmouth County Council and Southampton City Council)

June 2002

Foreword

It is a statutory requirement that strategic plans (such as Structure Plans) are produced for all parts of the country, by either county councils or unitary authorities individually or in partnership. In the case of Hampshire, the Structure Plan is produced jointly by Hampshire County Council, Portsmouth City Council and Southampton City Council.

Adopted Structure Plans should be regularly monitored to ensure that they remain up-to-date and relevant. As a result of monitoring, or the emergence of an important issue not covered by the Plan, it may be necessary to review, alter or replace the Plan. This document is the first annual monitoring report for the Hampshire County Structure Plan Review 1996-2011.

All references to `Hampshire' and the `Structure Plan' should be interpreted as meaning the combined administrative area of Hampshire County Council, Portsmouth City Council and Southampton City Council.

Context

Monitoring of the adopted Structure Plan has been undertaken at a time when the Government is reviewing the Development Plan system as a whole. The Planning Green Paper `Planning: Delivering a Fundamental Change' (December 2001) set out radical proposals that, if implemented, would see the end of Structure and Local Plans.

The Government is currently considering the comments received on the Green Paper and is expected to publish revised proposals later this year. Until the necessary legislation is introduced, the Green Paper states that strategic planning authorities should fulfil their statutory obligations and carry out reviews of structure plans on the issues that matter.

Further information

Further information on each topic is available from the contact listed at the end of the section. For general information on the Monitoring Report 2002 please contact:

Antony Payne,

Strategy Group

Environment Grouping

Hampshire County Council

The Castle

Winchester

SO23 8UE Tel: 01962-846766, e-mail: [email protected]

Acknowledgements/Disclaimer

Hampshire County Council, Portsmouth City Council and Southampton City Council acknowledge the support and co-operation of the Hampshire district councils in helping to provide information upon which this Monitoring Report is based. However, the interpretation of this information, and any conclusions drawn, is made by the three joint Structure Plan authorities and may not necessarily reflect the views of district councils.

Contents

Page

1. Introduction 3

2. Executive Summary 4

Topic

3. Urban Regeneration 8

4. Town Centres 12

5. New Forest Heritage Area 15

6. Major Development Areas 16

7. Economy 18

8. Transport 22

9. Housing 26

10. Recreation, Sport and Tourism 30

11. Rural Hampshire 32

12. Coastline and Estuaries 34

13. Landscape 36

14. Water 48

15. Energy 40

16. Nature Conservation 41

17. Archaeology 42

18. Built Heritage 43

19. Minerals 44

20. Waste 46

21. Local Plans Progress 48

1. Introduction

1.1 Regular monitoring ensures that the County Structure Plan Review remains the most appropriate and locally acceptable response to contemporary social, economic and environmental issues. Monitoring is taking two forms:

· An annual Monitoring Report (this document) and supporting tables

· A separate annual Monitoring Paper on Policy H4 (reserve housing provision)

1.2 In order to provide a clearer overview of the impact of the adopted Structure Plan it has been decided to monitor the effectiveness of the Plan under the various topic headings used in it, rather than seeking to examine each policy individually.

1.3 The process has concentrated on seeking to measure those factors that the Structure Plan can directly influence (such as the provision of land for housing). Some references to indirect indicators (such unemployment levels, house prices and incomes) have also been included to help provide the wider context within which the planning system operates.

1.4 As the Structure Plan covers the period 1996 - 2011 the base date for much of the information in this report is 1996. Monitoring broadly covers the period 1996 - 2001, although more recent information is referred to where available.

1.5 Each topic has an overarching policy aim, which summarises the general focus of policies within the topic, together with one or more indicators. There is an absence of indicators in the adopted Plan and, where necessary, this report has used new ones to assist in the qualitative and quantitative measurement of the Plans performance. Symbols are given for each indicator to show progress towards meeting the aim, as follows:

_ Overall movement towards meeting aim

_ No overall movement towards aim

_ Overall movement away from aim

_ Lack of comparative data to enable assessment to be made

2. Executive Summary

Overall picture

2.1 The overall conclusion of the first annual monitoring report is that the adopted Structure Plan is generally performing well. However, its full effectiveness may only be felt when all of the Hampshire local plans have been reviewed to take account of its policies.

2.2 A simple analysis of indicators used in this Monitoring Report shows:

Total

Overall movement towards meeting aim _ = 25 indicators

No overall movement towards aim _ = 8 indicators

Overall movement away from aim _ = 4 indicators

Lack of comparative data _ = 9 indicators

2.3 There has therefore been general progress towards meeting many of the policy aims for individual topics.

2.4 However, a few indicators show movement away from meeting Structure Plan policy aims. These include a rate of house building 1996-2001 below Regional Planning Guidance, more office floorspace being developed in out-of-centre locations than within the key commercial and financial centres, and the absence of an Major Development Area within the recently published Eastleigh Borough First Deposit Local Plan.

2.5 A number of indicators also show no overall movement towards meeting the policy aim. In many cases this may be due to the lead-in time required for policy changes to take effect and influence development of the ground.

2.6 The analysis also shows that, due to a lack of data, it has not been possible to assess how some Structure Plan policies have performed. It will be necessary to build on current information gathering processes to improve future monitoring of the Plan.

Summary of individual topics

2.7 Urban Regeneration - Although it is too early to assess the success of the Governments' `urban renaissance' initiative, monitoring of the Structure Plan has indicated that in many areas (such as the development of previously developed land and conversion of buildings to residential use) progress is being made via policies to Regenerate and re-develop existing urban areas.

2.8 One notable exception is office development, where a substantial amount of floorspace was developed between 1996 and 2001 in out-of-centre locations.

2.9 Town Centres - Although about half of all new retail floorspace between 1996 - 2001 was developed away from town centres, there is evidence to indicate that Structure Plan policy may be influencing the location of such developments in favour of town and district centres, thereby supporting the aim To maintain and enhance the vitality and viability of town and district centres.

2.10 Although a qualitative assessment of Hampshire town centres has been undertaken, other measurements to assess their vitality and viability are required to present a more rounded view of their overall economic health.

2.11 New Forest Heritage Area - There have been no significant departures to the Structure Plan arising from planning approvals, and the aim to Protect and enhance archaeological, geological, ecological and landscape character of the New Forest Heritage Area is on course.

2.12 Major Development Areas - Monitoring the current round of local plans is being undertaken to ascertain whether they are meeting the policy aim to Successfully implement the four baseline Major Development Areas and the Winchester North (Reserve) MDA, should it be required. Although some progress has been made, the recent First Deposit of Eastleigh Borough Local Plan does not make provision for an MDA (as proposed in the Structure Plan) and the County Council has expressed concern that the plan fails to make full housing provision in the Borough.

2.13 Economy - Monitoring indicates that, whilst the policy aim To provide opportunities for a range of locations, types and size of development and to provide a framework to stimulate and encourage economic growth is broadly being delivered, future monitoring should examine in detail issues of quality, location and loss of existing employment land to other uses.

2.14 Transport - Targets for changing modal choice have been set, projects are being developed and monitoring mechanisms put in place. The next few years should see real progress made towards the aim to Reduce the need to travel through locating new development where there are opportunities to reduce the dependency on private cars and the promotion of public transport, walking and cycling alternatives.

2.15 Housing - the housing component has, to date, performed moderately well in seeking to meet the aim to Provide sufficient housing to meet Hampshire's needs, including an appropriate proportion of affordable housing and accommodation to meet particular needs The number of houses developed between 1996 - 2001 was slightly more than the Plans baseline requirement, but fell short of the figure set out in Regional Planning Guidance. Furthermore, the steady fall in completion rates in recent years is a cause for concern.

2.16 Whilst there are positive signs that more smaller properties are being built, the percentage of affordable housing provided was generally below the targets recently set by the unitary authorities and district councils. This is expected to rise on the back of up-to-date housing needs surveys and local plan policies.

2.17 The overall housing land supply appears to be sufficient to meet Hampshire's needs in the short term. However, more detailed consideration is required on the assumptions and robustness of the sites identified through the emerging urban capacity studies

2.18 Recreation, Sport and Tourism - Monitoring of this topic has shown that the aim To maintain and improve recreational, sporting and tourist facilities is broadly on course.

2.19 Rural Hampshire - Although the County Council is actively engaged in a range of projects and initiatives relating to countryside issues, the absence of monitoring information relating to the impact development may be having on the countryside has made it difficult to ascertain the full extent to which progress has been made towards the policy aim To safeguard and improve the quality and character of the rural areas, whilst accommodating and managing necessary changes..

2.20 Coastline and Estuaries - Progress is being made towards the aim To protect, conserve and enhance the special qualities of the coastline and estuaries and improve the environmental quality of `run down' areas through regeneration of the urban coast, although improved monitoring of developments within the coastal belt is desirable.

2.21 Landscape - The county-wide landscape assessment published in 2000 has set down a benchmark against which future reviews will be undertaken every 3-5 years. This will inform the extent which the aim To maintain and enhance areas of distinctive landscape character is being met. To date monitoring data has not been collected against indicators derived from the planning process.

2.22 Water - The aim To safeguard the quality of groundwater and surface water and reduce the risk to people, buildings and the environment from flooding and coastal erosion is ...text to follow.

2.23 Energy - Although the Councils' are actively engaged in a range of projects and initiatives relating to energy reduction, the absence of overall monitoring information relating to the impact development may have on meeting the aim To reduce energy consumption by locating new development closer to the people it serves has made it impossible to ascertain to what extent it is being met.

2.24 Nature Conservation - To date monitoring data has not been collected against the specific indicators derived from the planning process. However, it is evident from sensitive allocations in local plans and planning decisions, that the identification of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation in Hampshire, in addition to international and nationally designated sites, is providing a robust framework for the protection of biodiversity and progress is being made towards the aim To maintain and enhance the quality of the county's biodiversity, including important habitats, species and natural feature..

2.25 Archaeology - The aim To preserve important archaeological sites and monuments is on course.

2.26 Built Heritage - Monitoring of the built heritage has shown that the aim To ensure the continued protection of the built heritage is broadly on course.

2.27 Minerals - Monitoring indicates that the aim of Structure Plan policy To make provision for an appropriate contribution towards national, regional and local needs for minerals from sources within Hampshire is generally being delivered.

2.28 Waste - Monitoring indicates that significant progress is being made towards the aim To make provision of sufficient facilities to meet the need for the management of all unavoidable waste (excluding special waste) arising in Hampshire; and to reduce the quantity of waste requiring treatment or disposal, particularly landfilling of non-inert waste..

2.29 Local Plans Progress - The successful implementation of the Structure Plan is, to a significant degree, dependent upon the translation of strategic policies into the local arena via local plans. Although progress is being made towards the production of comprehensive up-to-date local plan coverage in Hampshire, it is likely that by the end of 2004 only half of the 14 local plans covering the County will have been adopted in conformity with the Review Structure Plan. The aim To support the adoption of local plans that are in conformity with the adopted Structure Plan is therefore being achieved, although progress is slow.

Conclusion

2.30 The overall conclusion of the first annual monitoring report is that the adopted Structure Plan is generally performing well. However, its full effectiveness may only be felt when all the Hampshire local plans have been reviewed to take account of its policies.

2.31 The indicators used for monitoring should be refined and developed for future assessments of structure plan policies.

2.32 The data collected through the monitoring process should be fed into the on-going work on the Review of the Structure Plan.

3. URBAN REGENERATION

Background

3.1 The Structure Plan has made the regeneration and re-development of existing urban areas a key part of its overall strategy. The urban areas of Hampshire, including Portsmouth and Southampton, are important social, economic and cultural resources. Regeneration and re-development within the urban areas is an efficient and effective way of meeting development needs, maintaining investment, enhancing quality of life, sustaining the economy and reducing development pressures in more environmentally sensitive areas. They also provide the opportunity to reduce the need to travel, especially by car; and enable the maximum advantage to be made of locations most suited to the provision of public transport.

3.2 A range of indicators can be used to measure the success of this aim, including an assessment of how existing resources (such as land and buildings) are being utilised.

3.3 In November 2000 the Government published the White Paper `Our Towns and Cities: The Future', with its focus on delivering an urban renaissance. The Governments' vision is of towns, cities and suburbs which offer a high quality of life and opportunity for all. It also wishes to see better quality and improved design of urban areas and previously developed land and empty properties brought back into beneficial economic or social use. The planning system has key role to play in helping to realise this vision and new Planning Policy Guidance (PPG's) on housing, transport and retail and leisure developments has been issued. The adopted Structure Plan broadly accords with the White Paper.

3.4 The Government has set a national target that by 2008 60% of additional housing should be provided on previously-developed land and through conversions of existing buildings.

· While the percentage of dwellings built on previously developed land (including conversions) within the Hampshire Structure Plan area has risen year-on-year from 50% in 1996-97 to 65% in 2000-01 the actual numbers built has remained about the same. The percentage increase is largely explained by a 50% fall in dwellings built on greenfield sites over the same period.

3.5 Buildings that are vacant, under-utilised or no longer serve the purpose for which they are built can have a new lease of life through conversion to residential accommodation. Such conversions can help reduce the need to release greenfield sites for development and, in urban areas, support wider regeneration objectives. The following commentary and figures exclude conversions within greenfield locations (e.g. barn conversions):

· Between 1996-2001 some 2,850 (net) new dwellings were provided within the Structure Plan area as a result of building conversions.

· Conversions accounted for 10% of all residential completions in the Structure Plan area during this period.

· The number of conversions in 2000-01 was 40% higher than in 1996-97.

· 40% of conversions were on large sites of more than 10 dwellings.

· Almost two-thirds of all conversions were undertaken in just three local authority areas - Portsmouth, Southampton and Winchester.

3.6 Higher density developments in urban areas can help secure their regeneration, as well as help reduce the amount of greenfield land required for development.

· The density of housing development completed between 1996 and 2001 on previously developed land averaged 37 per ha and therefore fell within the range 30-50 per ha advocated in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3. However, the vast majority of these sites would have been granted planning permission before this came into effect and future monitoring may show higher densities being achieved.

3.7 Unfit dwellings (e.g. structurally unstable, in serious disrepair or with inadequate lighting, heating and ventilation etc.) can be seen as a wasted resource which, if renovated or re-developed, would help improve the environment and add to the effective housing stock.

· The number of dwellings considered unfit in the Hampshire Structure Plan area fell by 220 between 1997 and 2001.

· In April 2001 there were approximately 27,650 properties considered unfit in the Hampshire Structure Plan area - about 4% of the total dwelling stock. This compares favourably with the South-east average of 4.2%, and the average for England as a whole of 6.4%.

· Some 98% of unfit dwellings are to be found in the private sector.

3.8 Although some vacant housing is necessary for the effective operation of the housing market, too many empty houses can be seen as a wasted resource which, if brought back into beneficial use, could replace some demand for new property.

· The number of vacant dwellings in the Hampshire Structure Plan area fell by around 14% between 1997 and 2001.

· In April 2001 there were around 16,000 properties empty within the Hampshire Structure Plan area, a vacancy rate of about 2.4%. This compares favourably with the South-east average of 2.5%, and the average for England as a whole of 3.5%.

· In April 2001 four out of five vacant properties in Hampshire were to be found in the private sector.

3.9 Planning Policy Guidance 3 (March 2000) and "Tapping the Potential" (December 2000) advocated the production of Urban Capacity Studies to encourage more efficient use of land within urban areas by identifying potential housing opportunity sites. In July 2001 the three strategic planning authorities for the Hampshire County Structure Plan area published an advice note to the Hampshire local planning authorities on the preferred methodology for carrying out such studies.

· All local authorities in Hampshire have undertaken urban capacity studies. The strategic and local planning authorities are currently working together to achieve a consistent methodology for, and thus consistent results from, these studies across the Structure Plan area.

3.10 The Structure Plan advocates a sequential approach to retail developments, with town centres being the preferred location for new development.

· Between 1996 and 1997 only 43% of major retail floorspace was developed within existing town centres - in 2001 this figure had risen to 54%.

3.11 In the near future the completion of developments such as the Festival Place, Basingstoke should further strengthen the retailing functions of town centres.

3.12 An important component of securing urban regeneration is encouraging appropriate employment activities, however

· Between 1996-2001 47% of all completed office development was situated in out-of-centre locations, with only 42% located in the key commercial and financial centres within the major towns and cities.

3.13 Reducing the amount of vacant and derelict land is a key component of securing urban regeneration. The first results of the National Land Use Database (February 2000) showed that within the Structure Plan area in 1998:

· There was around 645 ha of previously developed vacant and derelict land, with a further 75 ha of land occupied by vacant buildings.

· One third of vacant and derelict land identified within the Structure Plan area was to be found within Fareham Borough boundary, with a further 18% within Portsmouth City. However, the majority of the land in Fareham is as a result of including the former Fleet Air Arm base of HMS Daedalus. No part of this site is currently available for development since it's future is presently under review by the MoD.

3.14 Results for 2001 are due to be published in June 2002 and should enable a comparison with the 1998 figures to be made in the next Annual Monitoring Report.

For further information on this theme contact:

Antony Payne, Strategy Group, Planning Department, The Castle, Hampshire County Council. Tel: 01962-846766, e-mail: [email protected]

4. TOWN CENTRES

Background

4.1 The focus of Structure Plan policy in relation to town centres is to promote policies to maintain and enhance the vitality and viability of town, district, local and village centres and to only support major retail development outside existing town centres when it can be justified.

4.2 This approach generally accords with the Government White Paper `Our Towns and Cities: The Future', with its focus on delivering an urban renaissance.

4.3 In the period 1996 - 2001 there were 30 retail developments of more than 2,500 m² completed and occupied within the Structure Plan area. The location of these developments was in:

· Existing town centres 33% Other locations 67%

4.4 The total floorspace developed was in excess of 275,000 m². Over the period 1996 - 2001 there was a 50:50 split between development within existing town centres and other locations. However, In 1996-1997 only 43% of major retail floorspace was developed within existing town centres - in 2001 this figure had risen to 54%, suggesting that Structure Plan policy may be influencing the location of such developments.

4.5 There was a wide variety in the type of major retail development built:

· Town centre malls and shopping centres (8 developments, 45% of floorspace)

· Retail warehouse (8 developments, 17% of floorspace)

· Superstores (7 developments, 17% of floorspace)

· Factory outlets (3 developments, 16% of floorspace)

· Garden centres (3 developments, 3% of floorspace)

· Other (1 development, 1% of floorspace)

4.6 In the above figures the factory outlet developments at Gunwharf Quays, Portsmouth and Whiteley have not been included under the "existing town centre" heading, although Portsmouth City Council is proposing to categorise Gunwharf Quays as a town centre and the Whiteley development forms part of Whiteley village.

4.7 There are a number of retail schemes in the pipeline, both within existing town centres and other locations. Some of the more significant ones are:

· The Festival Place redevelopment scheme, Basingstoke will provide a net retail floorspace gain of 33,000 m². Debenhams and BHS will be the anchor tenants, along with 70 shop, food and drink units, and a multiplex cinema.

· The Market Quay redevelopment, Fareham should provide 9,500 m² of retail floorspace. Elsewhere within the town are two sites for retail warehousing.

· In Portsmouth a planning brief was approved in 1999 for the redevelopment of the Tricorn and adjoining land. Discussions are proceeding with a preferred developer for a major mixed use scheme which is likely to include about 70,000 m² of retail and leisure floorspace. A planning application is anticipated in the autumn 2002.

· In Havant a 7,075 m² development at Potash Terrace is still subject to agreement. A retail warehouse at Brockhampton Lane is yet to start, as have extensions to B&Q, Bedhampton and ASDA, Waterlooville.

· Other schemes include redevelopment at the Queensmead and Mead shopping centres, Farnborough, resulting in a further 2,415 m² of retail floorspace, a new supermarket in Chandlers Ford and permission for 2,300 m² of retail floorspace at Elvetham Heath, Fleet

· In Andover there is permission for two retail warehouses and permission (subject to agreement) for a retail and leisure park, whilst in Romsey redevelopment of a depot site will provide a supermarket and retail units totalling 4,640 m².

4.8 Between 1996-2001 47% of all completed office development was situated in out-of-centre locations, with only 42% located in the key commercial and financial centres within the major towns and cities.

4.9 PPG6 encourages the improvement of town centres' `vitality and viability. It states that local authorities should regularly collect information on the indicators of vitality and viability of centres and suggests that this should include vacancy rates, market share, average rents and yields and the state of the town centres' environmental quality.

· The Hampshire Town Centre Qualitative Assessment survey was carried out in 1997 and 2000. Information collected includes: air and noise pollution, litter and quality of landscaping. The 2000 survey found that, of the 25 centres surveyed in 1997 16 had received a higher score, two had the same score and only seven had lower scores. Note that Southampton City Centre was not included in the survey.

· Other information on the vitality and viability of Hampshire town centres (e.g. vacancy rates) should be collected to provided a rounded picture as to how each is performing.

For further information on this theme contact:

Sue Clark, Strategy Group, Planning Department, The Castle, Hampshire County Council Tel: 01962-845890, e-mail: [email protected]

5. NEW FOREST HERITAGE AREA

Background

5.1 The New Forest is of major historic, nature conservation and landscape value. It contains a variety of natural and semi-natural habitats of a type and scale now rare in western Europe. The Structure Plan seeks to protect and enhance the Heritage Area, whose boundary has been defined in local plans for New Forest District, Test Valley Borough and Salisbury District (Wiltshire). Note that any reference to the New Forest in the Structure Plan should be taken as a shorthand for that part of the New Forest Heritage Area within Hampshire.

5.2 There have been no significant planning approval departures to the Structure Plan, although there is a need to systematically monitor the number and type of developments permitted within the New Forest Heritage Area.

· The current Public Inquiry for a container port at Dibden Bay includes consideration of its likely impact on the New Forest (see Coastlines and Estuaries theme for more information).

Related matters

5.3 In recognition of its value, the Government has declared its intention to designate a National Park in the New Forest. The New Forest National Park (Designation) Order was submitted to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by the Countryside Agency in February 2002. The proposed National Park area and boundaries are more extensive than that defined in the Structure Plan for the Heritage Area.

5.4 A Public Inquiry has been confirmed for autumn 2002 to consider objections and representations made on the Order.

For further information on this theme contact:

Rosalind Rutt, Strategy Group, Planning Department, The Castle, Hampshire County Council. Tel: 01962-846745, email [email protected]

6. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AREAS

Background

6.1 The current Structure Plan recognises that the long-term development needs of Hampshire cannot be met entirely within existing urban areas and has identified four areas for large scale development. These have been termed Major Development Areas (MDA's). They were chosen because, on balance, their development will best meet the strategic objectives of the Plan and, across the area as a whole, minimise the loss of, or damage to, areas of countryside and or conservation value. The location of the new development areas adjacent, or close to, existing urban areas can also contribute towards the development of public transport systems which benefit the wider area.

6.2 Within the MDAs development will be designed to contribute to the physical regeneration of existing urban areas and improves the quality of life and accessibility to improved social, community and transport facilities in existing, adjacent urban areas. Improvements should also be secured to the surrounding countryside.

6.3 A fifth MDA (Winchester City, north) was also identified as part of the reserve housing provision under Policy H4 and may be developed within the Plan period, should it be required.

6.4 The adopted Test Valley Borough Local Plan does not contain any policies on a proposed MDA at Andover. In May 2000 the Borough Council produced a "Beyond 2000" series of pre-deposit consultation documents which identified issues for the Local Plan Review. The "Andover Beyond 2000" included proposed new communities at East Anton/ Finkley Down (2000 dwellings) and Picket Twenty (1000 dwellings). It also noted the significant potential for infilling and redevelopment at Picket Piece.

· Following public consultation on the Beyond 2000 series the Council reaffirmed its intention to meet the housing requirements of the Structure Plan with allocations at East Anton/ Finkley Down and Picket Twenty. Picket Piece will be safeguarded for residential development post 2011, if required.

6.5 The adopted Local Plan covers the period up to 2001 and does not refer to the MDA. A review is being undertaken, and a Local Plan Strategy Paper was published in January 2002.

· Basingstoke & Deane Council state that planned developments at Park Prewett and North Popley are of a size that constitutes an MDA and therefore these will be taken as contributions to the MDA requirement.

6.6 The Eastleigh Local Plan was adopted in 1997 and covers the period up to 2001. The First Deposit Review of the Local Plan (published in February 2002) does not make provision for the MDA. Eastleigh Borough Council conclude that the need for an MDA will not arise during the first phase of the local plan period (2001-2006) and may not arise at all in the period to 2011. The housing requirement for the second phase of the Local Plan will be re-assessed in 3 years time.

· The County Council has taken the view that the First Deposit Local Plan is not in general conformity with the Hampshire County Structure Plan (Review) 1996-2011, in part because it fails to meet the overall housing provision for the Borough set out in the housing section of the Plan.

6.7 Although the adopted Winchester District Local Plan does not refer to this MDA, the First Deposit Review, published in October 2001, identifies two alternative development options for the West of Waterlooville MDA for a mix of uses to include 2000 dwellings.

· An Area of Search has also been identified for the future reserve provision of 1000 dwellings, if required, and a masterplan brief is to be prepared shortly.

6.8 Although the adopted Winchester District Local Plan does not refer to this reserve MDA, the First Deposit Review, published in October 2001, identifies a broad Area of Search for 2000 dwellings and associated development.

· Until such reserve provision is proven necessary the Area of Search will continue to be designated as a countryside area.

For further information on this theme contact:

Sarah Applegate, Strategy Group, Planning Department, The Castle, Hampshire County Council. Tel: 01962-846795, e-mail [email protected]

7. ECONOMY

Background

7.1 A healthy economy is fundamental to maintaining and enhancing the quality of life in Hampshire. On it depends not only the provision of jobs, but also the ability to tackle existing environmental and social problems and achieve high standards in new development.

7.2 The Plan aims to provide opportunities for a range of locations, types and sizes of development to:

· facilitate the growth and development of existing businesses;

· encourage appropriate new investment to provide employment opportunities to meet Hampshire's needs;

· focus on the regeneration of Portsmouth and Southampton;

· facilitate development and redevelopment in other urban areas;

· support small-scale businesses in rural areas; and

· encourage tourism

Labour market

7.3 The Plan also seeks to avoid overheating the local labour market and this may therefore be a factor in assessing whether to grant planning permission for industrial, commercial or business uses. The position of labour markets across the county show some notable variations:

· Economic activity rates (a measure of the proportion of the population who are in work or looking for work) are highest in the North-eastern part of the County (90% in Rushmoor and 88% in Hart) and lowest in Portsmouth and Southampton (76% and 77% respectively, marginally below the national average of 79%).

· Unemployment in Hampshire, at 1.5% is just under the regional average of 1.6% (December 2001). Unemployment rates below 1% are found in Hart, Winchester, Test Valley and Eastleigh local authority areas. The highest rates, above 2%, are found in Havant, Southampton, Portsmouth and Gosport, although in none of these areas is the unemployment rate higher than the 3.2% national average.

· Average earnings in Hampshire of £23,900 for full-time workers are below the regional average of £24,600, but above the national average of £23,000. Earnings are highest, above £28,000, in Rushmoor, Hart and Basingstoke and lowest, £21,000 and below, in Gosport, Eastleigh and Test Valley.

7.4 Land supply monitoring* has shown that there was a fairly stable demand for new industrial and business premises between 1996 and 2001. Over this period:

· Commercial development rates (industrial and offices) within the Structure Plan area were sustained at an average of around 180,000m² of new completions per annum. This is slightly below the 1991-1996 average of around 210,000 m² per annum.

· About 90% of new floorspace construction was industrial, warehousing or business park development, and 10% offices.

7.5 Commercial development sites and land available for office, industrial and warehousing development, as at January 2001, are capable of accommodating over 3 million m² of floorspace in Hampshire.

· This figure excludes 75 hectares of commercial, industrial and business development land that the Structure Plan proposes to be allocated within two Major Development Areas.

7.6 The pattern of floorspace supply indicates:

· A reasonably wide distribution of available sites all around the County for industrial, business and warehouse developments.

· A concentration of available office development sites in the north and south of the County, primarily in Basingstoke (33%), Southampton (21%), Aldershot and Farnborough (11%), Portsmouth (8%) and Eastleigh (8%).

7.7 When compared to recent development rates for the County as a whole, there appears to be sufficient sites and land available for many years to come. However, concern has been expressed in some quarters (e.g. commercial property agents) that part of the land supply is of poor quality or in the wrong location and consequently not particularly attractive to the business sector. There is a further concern that, unless new sites are readily available to accommodate companies' relocation and expansion plans, existing firms may leave the County.

7.8 There is also evidence emerging that in parts of the County (e.g. South Hampshire) a large amount of existing employment land has been lost in recent years to other uses, notably housing and leisure. There is some evidence that the effects of PPG 3, which aims to increase housing provision within urban areas, is putting more pressure on inner-urban industrial sites. The higher development returns achievable through residential schemes may be causing smaller industrial businesses to be squeezed out of the cheaper premises that have in the past sustained many local business and employment needs. The implications are that a significant number of businesses and jobs may be lost or displaced and the overall employment land supply reduced.

7.9 Concerns over the quality, location and availability of land for employment, and the loss of existing employment land to other uses, merit further examination in the next monitoring report.

7.10 The Structure Plan aims to support development in a range of locations. New industrial and warehousing floorspace developed 1996 - 2001 was completed at an average rate of 160,000 m² p.a. and was built:

· At established industrial areas or on newly allocated industrial land (75%)

· Elsewhere within the urban areas or through development opportunities occurring on windfall sites (17%)

· In the countryside by adapting or converting former farm buildings (8%)

7.11 In January 2001 there was some 2.8 million m² of land available for industrial and warehouse development. The county-wide distribution of this was:

· 29% Central (East Hampshire, Winchester and Test Valley)

· 25% South West (New Forest, Southampton, Eastleigh)

· 24% South East (Fareham, Gosport, Havant and Portsmouth)

· 22% North (Basingstoke, Hart and Rushmoor)

7.12 The Structure Plan aims to support development in a range of locations. New office development completed 1996 - 2001 totalled some 87,000 m² and was built in:

· Out-of-centre locations (47%)

· The key commercial and financial centres within the two cities or the major towns (42%)

· Rural areas (11%)

7.13 Office schemes in the southern part of Hampshire accounted for nearly 65% of new floorspace completed 1996-2001. Most new construction was in:

· Southampton (31%)

· Fareham (18%)

· Portsmouth and Eastleigh (each 5%)

7.14 These figures can mask significant development in localised areas. For example, 2000-2001 saw a large amount of new and redeveloped office floorspace provided in Basingstoke. The pattern of development also contrasts with the period 1991-1996 when, in addition to Southampton (where one-third of floorspace was developed), the districts of Rushmoor (14%), Winchester (13%) and Basingstoke (10% ) were also important.

7.15 In January 2001 there was some 350,000 m² of land available for office development. The county-wide distribution of this was:

· 47% North (East Hampshire, Winchester and Test Valley)

· 30% South West (New Forest, Southampton, Eastleigh)

· 13% South East (Fareham, Gosport, Havant and Portsmouth)

· 10% North (Basingstoke, Hart and Rushmoor)

7.16 Policy EC5 supports the expansion and enhancement of facilities at airports, including Southampton International and Farnborough.

· Southampton International Airport has expanded significantly over recent years with major enhancements to the facilities and a substantial number of firms connected to the airside activities. A new hotel is also proposed close to the airport terminal and rail station.

· Farnborough airfield is to be sold, leasehold, to TAG Aviation and developed as a major business aircraft hub for the South of England.

For further information on this theme contact:

John Sulzmann, Strategy Group, Planning Department, Hampshire County Council

Tel: 01962-846764, e-mail: [email protected]

* Commercial development monitoring undertaken by the strategic planning authorities gives information on land allocated in local plans or permitted by two categories:

1. Industry, business development and warehousing (Use Classes B1, B2 and B8)

2. Office (Use Class B1(a)), where other uses within Use Class B1 would be inappropriate.

8. TRANSPORT

Background

8.1 Government policy for transport is set out in the White Paper `A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone' (July 1998). In addition the Government has published `Transport 2010: The 10 Year Plan'.

8.2 Land use planning has a key role in delivering the Government's integrated transport strategy. PPG 13 on Transport (March 2001) sets out Government policy to encourage sustainable transport. By shaping the pattern of development and influencing the location, scale, density, design and mix of land uses, planning can help to reduce the need to travel and reduce the length of journeys.

8.3 The County Council, Southampton City Council and Portsmouth City Council have each produced a Local Transport Plan (LTP) for the period 2001-2006. Together they comprise Hampshire's transport policies and objectives and set targets and performance indicators designed to measure progress. Each LTP sets out a detailed 5 year programme of schemes needed to achieve transport objectives and support wider policy aims.

8.4 The three councils have also prepared Annual Progress Reports, as required by Government. The first APRs for Hampshire were produced in 2001. The next APRs will be produced in August 2002 and provide a more detailed analysis of how Hampshire is meeting its transport policy objectives. The following text is drawn from the 2001 APRs (although comments for the County Council may also reflect its draft 2002 APR, currently out for consultation).

8.5 Each council has set different objectives and targets to secure reductions in traffic growth.

· The County Council LTP headline target is to halve the rate of forecast traffic growth between 1998 and 2020 from 41% to 21%. For the period January 1998 to December 2001, traffic levels in Hampshire increased by approximately 5%, compared to an increase of 7% nationally over the same period.

· Portsmouth City Council headline target is to secure no growth in private vehicles into the core area during the morning peak period by 2006. Although the year 2000/01 saw an increase of just over 1% compared to the previous year, some growth was anticipated in the LTP in recognition that achieving changes in people's travel habits takes time.

· Southampton City Council is also seeking to reduce the proportion of car use at peak periods on main routes to city centre. However, like Portsmouth, the period 1998-2000 saw a slight increase over the baseline set at 1994-1996.

8.6 The County Council's monitoring and evaluation of transport activity is principally through two established programmes - an extensive household travel and attitudinal survey, Transpol, (which also covers the two cities) and a survey of each of the 11 transport strategy areas every two years. Transpol surveys indicate that the modal split for journeys to work between 1993-1998 were as follows:

· Car 76% - Bus 7% - Cycle 5% - Rail 4% - Walking 3% - M/cycle 1% - Taxi 1% - Other 3%.

8.7 This information will provide a useful baseline against which future Transpol surveys can be compared. In subsequent years it is also intended to supplement Transpol surveys with a regular countywide monitor to help inform the LTP process and provide data for future monitoring reports.

8.8 Portsmouth City Council has also set a target to reduce the proportion of secondary school children travelling to school by car to less than 40% of all non-walk trips but has experienced problems with obtaining base data by which change can be measured.

8.9 The three councils are all pursuing the adoption of travel plans both within their own organisations, schools and the business community through Workplace Travel Plans (WTPs), Green Travel Plans and Commuter Forums. The latter seek to create partnerships between organisations that are trying to change the transport habits of their employees and the implementation of transport provision.

8.10 The County Council has tripled the number of Commuter Forums serving Hampshire from two to six in the past year. It is also in the process of creating guidance on WTPs for developers and development control officers. It is also one of the authorities testing the DTLR Travel Plan Assessment Tool to assess all travel plans submitted by developers and to advise on, and improve the quality of, WTPs for new developments.

8.11 Progress has also been made on the adoption of School Travel Plans. By April 2002, of 150 County Council schools contacted (nearly a third of Hampshire's educational establishments), 26 had developed a School Travel Plan and 21 were in the process of developing one. In Portsmouth a "Safe Routes to School Officer" was appointed in Summer 2001 and will work with schools to produce plans. Southampton City Council aims for all schools to have adopted a schools transport plan by 2015.

8.12 The County Councils' LTP headline target is to increase the use of public transport in Hampshire by 25% by 2020 from a 2000 base year. An additional "bus" target has been set to increase bus use by 10% by 2010 from a 1999/2000 base year.

8.13 Key projects are being progressed to achieve these targets, the most significant being the South Hampshire Rapid Transit (SHRT). This comprises several stages, the first being a light rapid scheme (tram) linking Fareham and Gosport to Portsmouth.

8.14 Quality Bus Partnerships are also important. Under them operators are encouraged to increase the frequency and run new low-floor buses on the route. In return the County Council carries out improvements to the infrastructure such as improved bus stations and shelters etc.

8.15 Major rail initiatives are also being supported with improvements planned at Fareham Rail Station and a bid submitted for the re-opening of Chandlers Ford Railway Station. This would allow the introduction of a sub-urban service linking Totton, Southampton, Eastleigh, Chandlers Ford and Romsey. The local authorities have also continued the development of the National Traveline Enquiry Centre.

8.16 A key target in Portsmouth is to improve journey times on key routes relative to the same journey by car and the A3 Bus Priority Route between Portsmouth city centre and Horndean (being developed with the County Council and First Hampshire) is part of a study to optimise the package of infrastructure, service improvements and fares.

8.17 Southampton City Council is undertaking further assessment on its target that 98% of its population live within 400 metres of a bus stop or rail station that provide at least an hourly service between Monday and Saturday daytime hours.

8.18 It has also set targets for changing the transport system to better meet young people's needs and reduce older people's perception that transport information is confusing. Other initiatives include increasing the number of concessionary fares issued and Dial-a-Ride users.

8.19 However, Southampton figures for 2000 showed no movement from a 1994-96 base to increase the percentage of public transport trips to the city centre.

8.20 The County Council LTP headline target is to increase the use of walking in Hampshire by 25% by 2020 from a 2000 base year, and to contribute to the National Cycling Strategy Target of tripling cycling trips by 2010 from a 2000 base year.

8.21 Initiatives to help meet the target for increased walking are incorporated in projects within the transport capital programme. Town Centre environmental enhancements, undertaken in combination with other programmes such as the Country Towns Initiative and Regeneration of Older Urban Areas Programme, can also provide opportunities to increase the level of walking.

8.22 A comprehensive assessment framework has been developed to prioritise the delivery of cycle measures. To date, emerging networks in the North East Hampshire, Central Hampshire, Winchester and Totton and Waterside area have been assessed.

8.23 Portsmouth City Council has set a target to increase cycle use to 8% of urban traffic flow by 2002 and to 10% by 2006, from a 1996 base. However, percentage figures for 2000 showed a slight decline although it may be the case that the number of people cycling has remained constant or even increased despite cycling representing a smaller percentage of urban traffic flow.

8.24 In Southampton, the target is to increase cycle use from a base of 1.7% in 1994-96 to 4% by 2005. However, figures for 2000 showed no movement from the base percentage.

8.25 Work with Sustrans towards maximum synergy between the National Cycle Network and Hampshire's strategic and local utility and recreational cycling networks is being progressed.

For further information about this theme contact:

Steve Blyth, Strategy Group, Planning Department, The Castle, Hampshire County Council. Tel: 01962-846777, e-mail [email protected]

9. HOUSING

Background

9.1 During the period 1996-2001 the population within the Structure Plan area is estimated to have grown by 2%. However,

· Growth has not been uniform with Test Valley (6.8%) and Winchester (4.6%) local authority areas well above the average and Havant, Gosport and Portsmouth, each with less than 1%, well below. Southampton is estimated to have lost population during this period.

· The age profile of the County population in 2001 is estimated to be similar to the national one. In line with national trends there has been an overall decline in the percentage of those under 30 years of age and a rise in those over this age, most pronounced in those aged 75 and over.

9.2 It is calculated that there was a 4.5% increased in the number of households in Hampshire between 1996 - 2001. However,

· Growth has not been uniform with Basingstoke (8.5%) and Test Valley (7.9%) experiencing the highest growth rates and Havant and Southampton (2.5% each), the lowest.

· During this period there has been a fall in the numbers of `married couple' type households and growth in other types, including `lone parent' and `one person'.

9.3 Average house prices in the Hampshire Structure Plan area more than doubled between January-March 1996 and the same quarter in 2002. The largest percentage increases have been in dwellings at the lower end of the market (flats, maisonettes and terraced properties).

· There are considerable variations within the Plan area. For the first quarter of 2002 the average price of residential property within the Structure Plan area was £146,000, with Winchester city local authority area experiencing the highest average prices (£220,000) and Gosport and Portsmouth the lowest (£104,000).

· An index of average house prices to average incomes also shows marked variations. For example, in April 2001 average house prices were less than four times average local incomes in Portsmouth but seven and a half times in Winchester City district.

9.4 Current low mortgage interest rates have helped improved the affordability of housing with average repayments, as a percentage of average income, just above a 15-year low. This has benefited those who already have a mortgage with lower monthly payments. However, first time buyers have been unable to take full advantage of this as they are required to find increasingly large deposits for their first property.

· In April 2001 a `first time buyer' couple on average incomes could get their feet on the property ladder by being able afford a flat or maisonette at market value in all parts of Hampshire (based on making a 5% deposit and borrowing at 2.5 times joint annual salary). However, a single person on average income could only afford to buy a similar property (based on making a 5% deposit and borrowing at 3 times annual salary) in just three areas - Basingstoke and Deane, Havant and Rushmoor - unless they were able to raise their deposit. In the case of the most expensive area (Winchester district), by a further 35% (£45,000).

· In April 2001 an aspiring `first time buyer' couple who were both in the bottom 10% of earners were unlikely to find any properties at market value that they could afford in Hampshire, unless they were able to raise their deposit by an average 30% (£27,000). Single people in the bottom 10% of earners would, on average, need to raise their deposit by 56% (a further £50,000).

· It is evident that most potential first time buyers in Hampshire are finding it increasingly difficult to buy a property at market value unless they can access sources of finance that are additional to their income through employment. This is necessary to bridge the ever widening gap between the level of mortgage assistance available and the price of property.

9.5 Whilst housing completions over the period 1996-2001 exceeded the baseline requirement of the Plan by 2.6%, it nonetheless fell some 11% short of the figure for Hampshire set out in Regional Planning Guidance 9 (March 1994). Furthermore, completions for 2000-01 represent one of the lowest housing completion rates for the Structure Plan area since the county boundary alterations in 1974. This is consistent with national trends which indicate that house building rates are at a long-term low.

· Some 27,500 dwellings were built 1996-2001 - an annual average of 5,500 (compared to an annual average of 6,133 set out in RPG 9).

· There is considerable variation of completion rates for individual local authorities within the Structure Plan area.

· Three in every five dwellings were built on windfall sites, the remainder on sites identified in development plans.

· The number of dwellings built each year has fallen from a high of 6,750 in 1997-98 to 4,400 in 2000-01.

9.6 The Structure Plan seeks to enable provision of a range of house types to be built. Local planning authorities should seek to influence the mix of house types according to locally-identified housing needs. In recognition of the need to provide `affordable' dwellings there has been a general policy shift in favour of the provision of smaller properties.

· The percentage of smaller properties built (those with 1 to 2 bedrooms) has increased during the period from 39% in 1996 to 46% in 2000-01, whilst dwellings with 3 bedrooms fell by a similar percentage figure to 26% over the same period. Larger dwellings (those with 4 or more bedrooms) has stayed around 26%.

· Between 1996-2001 39% of new dwellings built were flats or houses with up to 2 bedrooms, 32% were flats or houses with 3 bedrooms and 28% houses with 4 or more bedrooms.

9.7 All district local plans contain policies on affordable housing which set out an affordable housing target based on local housing needs assessments and all relevant district local plans include a `rural exceptions' policy for the provision of affordable housing in rural areas.

· 18% of new dwellings built 1996-2001 were considered to be `affordable'.

9.8 This figure is well below the percentage targets (typically 25-35%) for affordable housing provision that local planning authorities are now advocating in their adopted and emerging local plans. However, it should be noted that these targets often include other sources of provision that Registered Social Landlords are providing through other mechanisms (e.g. buying into existing stock, temporary social housing and mortgage rescue etc.).

9.9 Since the Structure Plan was produced a new RPG 9 has been published (March 2001) that requires Hampshire development plans to make provision for an annual average of 6,030 dwellings between 2001 and 2006.

· There are currently sites capable of accommodating over 34,000 dwellings identified within the Structure Plan area and a further 12,000 dwellings are planned to be developed in the four Major Development Areas.

· Recent urban capacity studies, undertaken by the district and unitary authorities (as required by PPG 3), have identified sites that could be capable of accommodating over 22,000 additional dwellings. However, more detailed consideration is required on the assumptions and robustness of the sites identified to ensure that they can make a contribution to housing land supply.

· The overall housing land supply appears to be sufficient to meet Hampshire's needs in the short term. A Monitoring Paper for policy H4 (April 2002) concluded that there is no case for releasing any of the reserve housing provision this year.

Related matters

9.10 Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing (PPG 3) set out a new policy direction for the delivery of housing through the planning system based upon the `plan, monitor and manage' approach. An essential feature of this approach is that housing requirements and the way they are to be met should be kept under regular review. In particular, PPG 3 requires effective monitoring to underpin "the strategy of maintaining an adequate supply of land and buildings for housing and to enable its managed release".

For further information on this theme contact:

Antony Payne, Strategy Group, Planning Department, The Castle, Hampshire County Council. Tel: 01962-846766, e-mail: [email protected]

10. RECREATION, SPORT AND TOURISM

Background

10.1 The countryside of Hampshire, in its rich diversity; military heritage; historic cities, towns and villages and the coast and sailing waters of the Solent, combine to produce an attractive location for recreation and tourist activities. A buoyant tourist industry has played a part in the economic success of Hampshire and it is expected that its contribution to the local economy will continue to grow.

10.2 However, the intensity of leisure and tourist activities in many areas, particularly the Solent coast and the New Forest, is such that there is increasing concern about traffic congestion, physical erosion of land and disturbance of sensitive habitats. Accommodating additional recreational development and increased visitor pressure must not result in further reduction of the attractiveness of these areas.

10.3 Recent planning permissions for recreational, sporting and tourist facilities demonstrate that this policy aim is being delivered. Some of the more significant ones include:

· Stadiums - in Southampton, on the old Northam Gasworks site, a 32,000 all seater football stadium was completed in summer 2001 and is in use. Planning permission has been granted for a new football stadium at Fratton, Portsmouth and also a smaller one close to Fareham.

· Golf courses - several golf courses and driving ranges have been permitted, including golf courses at Romsey, North Waltham near Basingstoke, West End near Southampton, Ampfield and Hursley, both between Chandlers Ford and Winchester and two at Fareham. A golf course at Sherfield on Loddon near Basingstoke is under construction.

· Leisure sector - most interest has focused on providing health and fitness centres throughout the county. A health suite, swimming pool and gymnasium has been completed at Southwood in Rushmoor.

· Accommodation - planning permission has been granted for new hotels at Petersfield, Borden, West End, Fareham, Dogmersfield Park near Fleet, Morn Hill, close to Winchester, Fleet Service Station, Rownhams Service Station, on the A27 Emsworth By-Pass and (subject to agreement) at Basingstoke. The Sinah Warren Holiday Village at Hayling Island is under construction and a motel at Winchester Service Station has been completed.. Hotel extensions have been permitted throughout the county (see Retail and Leisure Floorspace Supply - Monitoring Information 2001 for details).

· Attractions - planning permission has been granted for an extension to the Royal Naval Submarine Museum in Gosport.

Related matters

10.4 The Government has proposed new National Parks for the South Downs and the New Forest as National Parks (see Rural Hampshire and New Forest sections for more information).

10.5 The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 contains measures to improve public access to the open countryside and registered common land and amends the law relating to public rights of way. The provisions made in the Act will be phased in and in the meantime the Countryside Agency has initiated the Integrated Access Demonstration Programmes.

10.6 The Hampshire Integrated Access Demonstration Programme will specially consider improving access into the countryside from urban areas and planning for countryside recreation in new developments. It will concentrate on south east Hampshire, including the urban fringe of the south coast, the countryside of the Forest of Bere and the western part of the South Downs.

For further information on this theme contact:

Sue Clark, Strategy Group, Planning Department, The Castle, Hampshire County Council. Tel: 01962-845890, e-mail: sue.clark@hants,gov.uk

11. RURAL HAMPSHIRE

Background

11.1 The county's landscapes and habitats are of exceptional range and quality, with national and international designations protecting significant areas.

11.2 Farming plays a pivotal role in determining the landscape and biodiversity, yet is under severe financial pressure and is undergoing significant changes. Reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy are beginning to shift support towards wider rural development, and conservation of the environment will be crucial in shaping the future of the countryside.

11.3 There is evidence of social disadvantage in Hampshire's rural areas, often hidden behind the apparent prosperity. Loss of services, decline in employment and training opportunities, and poor transport facilities contribute to rural deprivation. The severe under-provision of affordable housing is a key issue for rural as well as urban areas. Government funding through new initiatives following on from the Rural White Paper (2000) is starting to help address these issues.

11.4 The County Council works with a wide range of partners to safeguard and improve the rural areas. Key projects to support the rural economy and rural towns, for example, include support for market towns, local food producers and rural tourism. The Council gives advice and grants to farmers for certain activities and helps promote an understanding of farming and countryside issues.

11.5 Sustainable land management is promoted through partnerships, strategies and projects, ranging from the Hampshire Landscape Strategy and Biodiversity Action Plan to specific projects for grazing, energy from biomass and for particular areas of countryside on the urban fringe or in designated areas. Partnership working is also underway to improve rural transport and services and to look more closely at possible solutions to the shortage of affordable housing.

· Over 200 dwellings (net) were created between 1996-2001 as a result of building conversions (such as barns and out-buildings) within greenfield locations. The numbers provided each year have fallen steadily and in 2001 were just 40% of the figure in 1996, suggesting that this source of new housing may be drying up.

· Over 50% of all conversions of buildings (such as barns and out-buildings) to residential use within greenfield locations in the Structure Plan area were located in just two local authority areas (East Hampshire and Winchester).

· Around 8% of all new industrial and warehouse floorspace developed 1996-2001 was built in rural Hampshire by mainly by adapting or converting former farm buildings. This helped to provide a wider range of employment opportunities in rural areas.

· Around 11% of all office development completed between 1996 was located within rural Hampshire, thereby providing another source of employment opportunity.

· Apart from building conversions, there is presently a general absence of comprehensive monitoring information relating to the impact development may be having on the countryside. There is accordingly a requirement for the identification and monitoring of key indicators to determine to what extent the Structure Plan is helping to achieve this aim.

Related matters

11.6 Consideration of parts of the county as National Parks is continuing and progress on the creation of a National Park for the New Forest is covered in a separate section. With regard the South Downs, the Countryside Agency began the process of designating this area as a National Park in April 2000. The general area of interest stretches from the edge of Winchester to, and beyond, the county boundary with West Sussex.

11.7 In November 2001 the Agency launched a widespread consultation on its initial proposals for the boundary and the administrative options. The Countryside Agency Board is expected to publish and place on deposit the Designation Order and advice to Government, which it will also submit to the Secretary of State, by the end of 2002.

For further information on this theme contact:

Rosalind Rutt, Strategy Group, Planning Department, The Castle, Hampshire County Council. Tel: 01962-846745, email [email protected]

12. COASTLINE AND ESTUARIES

Background

12.1 During the monitoring period no new national or regional policy guidance has been issued that has a particular bearing on coastal policies. Planning Policy Guidance 20 `Coastal Planning', published in 1992, therefore remains the primary national planning policy guidance for coastal areas.

12.2 There are indications that the Habitats Regulations 1994 have been applied with increasing rigour during the plan period, so that coastal Special Protection Areas and the candidate Maritime Special Area of Conservation are generally well protected from inappropriate development.

12.3 During the late 1990s shoreline management plans were adopted by the operating authorities (district councils and the Environment Agency) to provide a strategic framework for coastal defence planning. These plans have increasingly influenced land use and development planning, and will continue to do so.

12.4 The number and type of inappropriate developments permitted annually within the coastal belt has not been formally monitored, but the number is likely to be very low. There have been very few planning proposals for such developments proceeding contrary to the relevant coastal policies of the Structure Plan.

· A Public Inquiry into a proposed new container port by Associated British Ports on part of Dibden Bay commenced in November 2001. Policy EC6 (which recognises that there may be an opportunity to develop deepwater container berths at Dibden Bay) and others of relevance in the Structure Plan are being tested at the Inquiry. The Inquiry is currently programmed to conclude in December 2002, with a decision issued sometime thereafter.

· A range of projects and schemes to conserve and enhance the coastal environment have been carried out, most of them initiated by the local authorities. For example, the County Council has carried out a major scheme at Hill Head Harbour. A study being undertaken by the Solent Forum will include a summary of past, present and planned environmental improvement schemes on the Hampshire coastline.

12.5 The County Council's programme for the Regeneration of Older Urban Areas has funded a number of schemes on the urban coast. These include sites in Gosport (Hardway, Haslar Lake, and the Esplanade), Warsash (The Hard) and Hamble (foreshore).

12.6 In Portsmouth the Gunwharf redevelopment has revitalised an extensive former Ministry of defence site and provided an attractive waterfront alongside Portsmouth Harbour.

12.7 The Southampton Urban Design Strategy (2001) identified the waterfront as a key opportunity area. Proposals include the regeneration of Royal Pier with a new landmark development on the city's key area of public waterfront and improving the environmental quality of Town Quay and the setting of the Town Walls.

Alan Inder, Strategy Group, Planning Department, The Castle, Hampshire County Council. Tel. 01962-846759, e-mail [email protected]

13. LANDSCAPE

Background

13.1 PPG 7 "The Countryside and the Rural Economy" (1997 revision) states that all plans are required to include policies in respect of the conservation of the natural beauty and amenity of the land. It then goes on to recommend the use of " a systematic assessment of landscape character and non-statutory rural strategies" to inform the preparation of development plans. Recent guidance from the Countryside Agency (April 2002) reinforces the role character assessment needs to play in informing the development plan and decision making process.

13.2 PPG 15 "Planning and the Historic Environment" (1994) emphasises the importance of protecting elements of our cultural heritage, which sustains `the sense of local distinctiveness which is so important an aspect of the character and appearance of our towns, villages and countryside'.

13.3 The National "Character of England Map" (1996) guides policy development and informs national decision making giving a context to local planning, action and development.

13.4 Structure Plan Policy E6 is based on the character approach to landscape conservation and enhancement and offers the most holistic, flexible and responsive mechanism for achieving positive change in the landscape. It considers potential impacts of various developments against different landscapes. It also gives guidance for new development to be designed to respect the character of the diverse landscapes within the county.

13.5 This policy requires Local Planning Authorities, through the Local Plans, to implement this strategic planning policy . To operate effectively indicators will need to be applied at both district and county level.

13.6 The county-wide landscape assessment, published in 2000, will be the benchmark to assess demonstrable change in key characteristics for each landscape character area, with respect to land use impact. This will be reviewed every 3 - 5years. Other indicators are likely to include:

· Number of recommendations to use Structure Plan policy E6 in determining planning applications; and the number of refusals and consents using this policy, including appeal decisions.

13.7 This indicator will be assessed using information on the reinstatement of derelict or degraded land through development and the enhancement of existing key characteristics through development.

For further information on this theme contact:

Ray Smith, Landscape Group, Planning Department, The Castle, Hampshire County Council. Tel: 01962-846818, e-mail: [email protected]

14. WATER

Background

14.1 Water is an essential part of everyone's daily life, domestically and for industry. It also has a vital role in supporting the natural environment. Climate change may have an increasing effect on water resources, with predicted increase in winter rainfall, drier summers and rising sea levels.

14.2 In recent years there have been some major flooding events nationally, and the government put the spotlight on the planning system, resulting in PPG25 `Development and Flood Risk' (July 2001). This new guidance significantly tightens control over development in areas at risk from flooding. The government also introduced High Level Targets for Flood and Coastal Defence, that are now monitored by DEFRA, to monitor development in areas at risk of flooding or coastal erosion.

14.3 In Hampshire, groundwater flooding is of greater impact (property damage and length of duration) than fluvial and coastal flooding. Groundwater flood risk areas have yet to be mapped but there is information available. Some of the development proposed in local plans up catchment and well away from floodplains may have a significant effect on flooding elsewhere if surface water management is not properly controlled.

14.4 Together with increasing water usage per head and the scale of new development required in the Structure Plan, water management issues are likely to become increasingly important.

14.5 The `Water in Hampshire project' was established by the County Council in 1999 to take a holistic look at freshwater issues. Addressing groundwater and surface water quality is therefore an integral part of this project. In 2001, the County Council published its Corporate Water Action Plan to demonstrate its own commitment to stewardship of the water environment. The 2^nd Edition of the CWAP (published April 2002) includes specific actions related to water quality.

14.6 To address issues across Hampshire as a whole, the County Council is also working in partnership with eight organisations (Environment Agency, Southern Water, Hampshire Wildlife Trust, National Farmers' Union, Bryant Homes, Southampton City Council, Hampshire Association of Parish and Town Councils, and New Forest District Council) to produce a Hampshire Water Strategy. A draft version of the strategy, which addresses groundwater and surface quality, is due out in the summer of 2002

14.7 It should be noted that PPG25 does not prohibit development (or redevelopment) in floodplains or areas at particular risk of flooding, as long as the development proposed complies with the terms of the sequential test and any appropriate conditions required by the Environment Agency or local planning authority. Indeed, there will be numerous examples where new development affecting floodplains will bring in the investment needed to upgrade flood defence or the improved management of water flow. It is the responsibility of developers to provide competent flood risk assessments to accompany any proposals regarded as influencing flooding and to satisfy statutory consultees of the performance of their scheme(s).

· There is general policy coverage in local plans addressing flood risk.

· The County Council is not in a position to monitor directly the number and types of developments permitted within defined flood risk areas as it is not a consultee. However, evidence from the Environment Agency shows that it is being consulted on relevant applications and only a few applications involving flood risk have been permitted against its advice.

For further information on this theme contact:

Mike Long, Environment Group, Planning Department, The Castle, Hampshire County Council. Tel. 01962-846773, e-mail [email protected]

15. ENERGY

Background

15.1 Planning polices can contribute to the long-term reduction of energy consumption by locating new development closer to the people it serves. The Structure Plan contains policies to maximise energy efficiency and promote the use of renewable energy. These also recognise the interrelationships between the location of new development and the impact on existing infrastructure, including public transport.

15.2 There are a number of other relevant initiatives underway that are seeking to influence the reduction of energy consumption. One of these is the Natural Resource Initiative by the County Council that focuses on the more efficient use of natural resources. This is being steered by the County Surveyors Department and aims to develop an action orientated materials / waste strategy and land use plan.

15.3 In Southampton a number of energy efficient housing improvement or building schemes are planned or are underway e.g. Newtown/Nicholstown, Sun Centre, Mason Moor scheme.

15.4 The Structure Plan has a range of policies that have a bearing on this theme. These include relating land use to transportation issues to reduce the demand for energy, seeking to maximise energy efficiency through the siting, design, layout and orientation of new development and assessing renewable energy proposals.

· In order to understand and explore the effectiveness of these policies it is necessary to identify where development has taken place over the Structure Plan period 1996 up to 2001. This will identify the proportion of development located close to large settlements that have a range of community facilities and services and therefore reduce travel by private motor vehicle.

· However, there has been an absence of monitoring of this data in previous years and therefore it is not possible to assess the effectiveness of these policies. Relevant indicators and data systems will need to be put in place to ensure data is available for future monitoring purposes.

For further information on this theme contact:

Sarah Applegate, Strategy Group, Planning Department, The Castle, Hampshire County Council. Tel: 01962-846795, e-mail [email protected]

16. NATURE CONSERVATION

Background

16.1 Policies within the Structure Plan cover the protection of international and national designations and the locally designated Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs). They also make provision for conserving the natural environment outside designated areas and for enhancing biodiversity where ever possible.

16.2 The Habitat Regulations have set rigorous assessment procedures for international sites. The Environmental Assessment Regulations have increased the range of developments requiring Environmental Impact Assessments in Hampshire. Work is being undertaken on the review of mineral permissions under the Environment Act and review of development under the Habitat Regulations. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act has introduced a statutory duty for local authorities to further the conservation and enhancement of Sites of Special Scientific Interest through their planning decisions. The review RPG 9 has introduced robust policies for the protection of biodiversity and sustainable development. PPG9 is currently being revised and is intended to emphasise the role of locally designated SINCs and the role of planning in the UK biodiversity process.

16.3 To date monitoring data has not been collected against the indicators derived from the planning process. However,

· All local plans have defined Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation

· The main development control case affecting biodiversity is the proposed port development at Dibden Bay (see Coasts and Estuaries section). The current public inquiry involves the close scrutiny of procedures under the Habitat Regulations and the application of Structure Plan Policy.

For further information on this theme contact:

David Pape, Environment Group, Planning Department, The Castle, Hampshire County Council. Tel: 01962-846739, e-mail: [email protected]

17. ARCHAEOLOGY

Background

17.1 Archaeological sites and monuments and their settings are a finite and non-renewable resource. Care must be taken to ensure that they are not needlessly or thoughtlessly damaged or destroyed. Whilst a number of archaeological sites and monuments are protected by national legislation, the majority rely on the Structure Plan, local plans and the development control process for their continued protection and management.

17.2 The national policy framework for archaeology and planning remains as set out in PPG 16 (November 1990).

17.3 Monitoring has revealed that:

· No Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs) were destroyed by development in 2001.

· One nationally important archaeological site was destroyed by development in 2001. This site was found unexpectedly during development and was fully recorded prior to destruction.

· The nationally important but unscheduled archaeological site of Hamwih (Southampton) is extensive, built-up and subject to development. Development proceeds with the prior approval of English Heritage and with full archaeological recording.

· All local plans have policies identifying the presumption of preserving nationally important archaeological sites. No local plan allocated a Scheduled Ancient Monument for development.

· There are Scheduled Ancient Monuments within the Manydown area west of Basingstoke. The existence and importance of these has been highlighted during consultation on the area.

For further information on this theme contact:

David Hopkins, Environment Group, Planning Department, The Castle, Hampshire County Council. Tel: 01962- 846735, e-mail [email protected]

18. BUILT HERITAGE

Background

18.1 The historic built heritage is a significant environmental, cultural and educational resource. Its vulnerability to change is reflected in the range of measures aimed at its protection. It also plays a key part in promoting economic prosperity by, for example, attracting tourists and helping to provide attractive living and working conditions. Local plans outline the measures that can be taken to conserve and/or enhance the historic character of particular areas.

18.2 Monitoring has revealed that:

· There has been a continued annual increase in the number of buildings added to statutory list as having special architectural or historic interest. In 2001 figure was 34.

· In 2001 6 buildings were deleted from the statutory list.

· All local plans continue to have appropriate policies.

· Therefore, Structure Plan policy E18 remains effective.

For further information on this theme contact:

Mike Clark, Environment Group, The Castle, Hampshire County Council

Tel: 01962 846832 e-mail: [email protected]

19. MINERALS

Background

19.1 Hampshire is a significant source of land-won sand and gravel for use as aggregate minerals in the construction industry. The continued supply of aggregates is essential to meeting the social and economic needs of Hampshire. Under current Government and Regional planning guidance, Hampshire should make provision for the extraction of 2.7 million tonnes of sand and gravel each year as its share (`apportionment') of supply within the South East. In addition, a landbank of permitted reserves of sand and gravel equivalent to at least seven years at this rate of working should be maintained. The Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton MWLP, adopted in 1998, provides for the `apportionment' to be met, and identifies preferred areas to provide for Hampshire's sand and gravel supply requirement over the period to 2008.

19.2 The minerals part of the MWLP is currently being reviewed, as also are national and regional planning policy for the supply of aggregates. Whilst there are strong environmental constraints on mineral working in much of the county, Hampshire is expected to continue to make a significant contribution to the sand and gravel supply requirements of the South East.

19.3 The indicators that can be used to measure the extent to which this aim is being met are: annual sales of land-won sand and gravel; reserves of sand and gravel with planning permission; and remaining sand and gravel provision in the MWLP.

19.4 Monitoring has demonstrated that:

· Sales of land-won sand and gravel from Hampshire have averaged 2.5 million tonnes from 1992 to 2001.

· Sales in eight of the past ten years have been below the 2.7 million tonnes per annum `apportionment' provided for in the MWLP.

· Permitted reserves of land-won sand and gravel (landbank) in Hampshire at the end of 2001 stood at 14 million tonnes.

· The overall landbank for Hampshire at the end of 2001 was equivalent to 5.2 years working, under the 7 years required by Government policy and provided for in the MWLP.

· The County Council has resolved to grant planning permission for extraction of a further 2.2 million tonnes of sand and gravel subject to the completion of a legal agreement, sufficient for a further 0.8 years working.

· Remaining preferred areas for sand and gravel identified in the MWLP are sufficient for a further 3.8 years working.

For further information on this theme contact:

Roger Stow, Minerals and Waste Planning Group, Planning Department, The Castle, Hampshire County Council. Tel: 01962-846731, email: [email protected]

More details on the monitoring of minerals development is included in Minerals and Waste Planning in Hampshire Annual Report 2001 (to be published Summer/Autumn 2002).

20. WASTE

Background

20.1 Hampshire is a major producer of controlled waste: inert/construction and demolition; commercial and industrial; municipal; and special. Historically the great majority of this waste has been disposed of by landfill, with (up to 1996) incineration of some municipal waste. EU and national legislation and policy now requires a major shift away from disposal of waste, particularly by landfill, towards its use as a resource. National targets have been set for reductions in landfilling and for increases in recovery of resources and recycling and composting. These will be translated into regional targets through the emerging South East Regional Waste Management Strategy, and into local targets through the impending review of the waste part of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton MWLP.

20.2 Project Integra, Hampshire's integrated household waste management strategy (developed through a partnership between the County, City and District Councils and the contractor Hampshire Waste Services), will be a key element in delivering the changes needed to meet these targets. It is an aim of the strategy to increase recycling of household waste eventually to 40%.

20.3 Achieving these changes in waste management will require the delivery through the planning system of new waste management infrastructure, including recycling, composting, waste transfer and resource recovery facilities. Further provision of landfill capacity will also be required, to deal with residues and wastes that cannot be dealt with in other ways. The MWLP, adopted in 1998, makes provision for new waste management infrastructure, including identifying sites for resource recovery facilities and landfill, but only covers the period to 2001. A review of the plan is therefore overdue.

20.4 The indicators that can be used to measure this aim are: amount of wastes of different types handled, treated or disposed in different ways; the available capacity of waste management facilities of different types and suitable for different types of waste; and permissions granted for new waste management facilities.

20.5 Monitoring has demonstrated that:

· About 4.5 million tonnes (mt) of waste was handled, treated or disposed of at authorised waste management facilities in Hampshire in 1998-99.

· The majority (58%) of this waste (2.6 mt) was disposed of at landfill sites; a further 22% (1.0mt) was subject to recycling, composting or other treatment; most of the remainder passed through transfer facilities; and a small amount of special waste was incinerated.

· The majority (63%) of waste landfilled in Hampshire was inert/construction and demolition waste; the other 37% comprised non-inert (municipal/industrial and commercial/special) wastes.

· The total remaining void capacity at licensed landfills in Hampshire at the end of March 1999 was 13.4 cubic metres (mcm), of which 2.1 mcm (16%) was suitable for inert waste only.

· Additional non-inert landfill capacity of 5.7 mcm has been permitted granted in 1999-2002, at sites identified in the MWLP.

· 863,000 tonnes of municipal waste, predominantly collected household and commercial and amenity waste, was handled in Hampshire by Project Integra in 2000/2001 - a 1% increase on the previous year.

· New waste management infrastructure has been provided across Hampshire, in particular to handle municipal waste as part of Project Integra, including waste transfer, materials recovery (MRF) and composting facilities.

· 193,000 tonnes (23%) of municipal waste was recycled in 2000/2001 compared with 187,000 tonnes (22%) in 1999/2000.

· Three energy from waste incinerators have now been granted permission at sites identified in the MWLP at Basingstoke, Marchwood and Portsmouth, with a combined capacity of 420,000 tonnes a year of municipal waste.

For further information on this theme contact:

Roger Stow, Minerals and Waste Planning Group, Planning Department, The Castle, Hampshire County Council Tel: 01962-846731, email: [email protected]

More details on monitoring waste development is included in Minerals and Waste Planning in Hampshire Annual Report 2001 (to be published Summer/Autumn 2002).

21. LOCAL PLAN PROGRESS

Background

21.1 The successful implementation of the Structure Plan is, to a significant degree, dependent upon the translation of strategic policies into the local arena via local plans. Although there is full local plan coverage across the county most pre-date the current Structure Plan. Local authorities are in the process of reviewing these plans so that they conform with the Hampshire Structure Plan 1996-2011 Review.

21.2 Local plan coverage in Hampshire, as at May 2002, was as follows:

1. Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan - adopted September 1998 (end date of plan 2001). Local Plan review first deposit draft expected September 2002.

2. East Hampshire District Local Plan - adopted February 1998 (end date of plan 2001). Local Plan second deposit published January 2002. Public Inquiry expected Spring 2003.

3. Eastleigh Borough Local Plan - adopted July 1997 (end date of plan 2001) . Local Plan review first deposit draft placed on deposit March 2002. County Council has declined to issue a statement the this plan is in conformity with the adopted Structure Plan. Revised deposit expected Autumn 2002.

4. Fareham Borough Local Plan - adopted March 2000 (end date of plan 2006). No timetable for review.

5. Gosport Borough Local Plan - adopted April 1995 (end date of plan 2001). Review plan first deposit due September 2002.

6. Hart District Local Plan - 2^nd Alteration adopted December 1993 (end date of plan 2001). Replacement District Local Plan expected to be adopted October 2002.

7. Havant Borough Local Plan - current local plan was adopted in June 1994. This, and three other adopted local plans, will be replaced by a new District Local Plan (revised deposit published February 2002 with Public Local Inquiry expected October 2002).

8. New Forest District Local Plan - adopted November 1999 (end date of plan 2001). First Alteration placed on first stage deposit in July 2001. Consideration of the revised deposit stage of the local plan has been deferred until approximately Autumn 2002 to enable further consultation with all stakeholders to take place.

9. Portsmouth City Local Plan - adopted December 1995 (end date of plan 2001). Review Plan (revised deposit draft) placed on deposit March 2002. Public local inquiry expected late 2002.

10. Rushmoor Borough Local Plan 1996 - 2011 (Review) - adopted August 2000 (end date of plan 2011). No timetable for review.

11. Southampton City Local Plan - adopted January 1996 (end date of plan 2001). First deposit published March 2001. Revised deposit expected Summer 2002.

12. Test Valley Borough Local Plan - adopted April 1996 (end date of plan 2001). Currently being reviewed and expected to be placed on deposit during Autumn 2002.

13. Winchester City Plan - adopted April 1998 (end date of plan 2001). Review plan first deposit published October 2001, revised deposit expected Summer 2002.

14. Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan - adopted December 1998. First deposit draft Minerals Alteration expected early 2003.

For further information on this theme contact:

Jacqui Hall, Strategy Group, Planning Department, The Castle, Hampshire County Council Tel: 01962-846806, email: [email protected]