Date: 25 June 2002 Item 5 Report by: The Hampshire County Planning Officer, Portsmouth City Planning Officer and Southampton Executive Director of Development and Sustainability Written by: Stuart Roberts, tel 01962 846782 Purpose and Summary: In July 2001 this Panel triggered the start of the roll forward/review of the adopted Structure Plan. Technical work has been progressing since then on the identification of policy issues and options and these will be ready for discussion with Members in the autumn. The Panel deferred until this summer, however, decisions on the extent of change to be made to the Plan, the time horizon for the revised/new Plan and the timetable for the work. This report addresses those matters in the light of key stakeholders' views, the Planning Green Paper and other recent developments. It puts forward principles to guide the next stages of the project: that a replacement Structure Plan be prepared which is a more concise, strategic document than the current Plan, has a strong sub-regional component and looks a long way ahead for overall strategy and major proposals, and to a medium-term horizon for specific matters such as housing provision. The proposed timetable for the next stages is to hold a conference in September at which the issues and options emerging from the current technical work would be debated, leading to public consultation in 2003. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) That Hampshire County Council, Portsmouth City Council and Southampton City Council be recommended to endorse: (i) the principles for future work on the roll forward/review set out in paragraph 7.1 of this report; and (ii) the provisional programme for the next stages of the roll forward/review set out in paragraphs 8.1 to 8.3 and the attached appendix.
2) That this Panel meet again in September to consider the policy statement expected this summer from the Government on the future of the planning system, and to assess its implications for the process and programme for the roll forward/review. 1. Introduction 1.1 In July 2001 this Panel resolved to start work on the roll forward/review of the adopted Hampshire County Structure Plan 1996-2011. It did not, however, come to any view on the scope of the review (whether only some policies/topics would be amended or a completely new Plan prepared), nor how far ahead the revised/new Plan should look (2016, 2021 or some other date), nor on a timetable for the review process. The Panel initiated the start of technical work, together with a consultation with key stakeholders, which would help inform those future decisions on scope, time horizon and timetable. 1.2 This report summarises the views received from key stakeholders, reviews other recent developments which have a bearing on those issues, and recommends a way ahead. 2. Stakeholders' Views 2.1 Earlier this year, Hampshire district, parish and town councils, adjoining strategic planning authorities and other key stakeholder organisations were asked for views on the matters listed in paragraph 1.1 above. More specifically, they were asked which existing policies they felt should be amended or deleted, and whether any new policies should be added. Views have been received from 52 parish and town councils, New Forest District Council, two adjoining strategic planning authorities and ten other organisations, including the Environment Agency, House Builders Federation and Defence Estates. Informal comments have also been received from Hampshire district planning officers. 2.2 There is considerable support from parish and town councils for the current Structure Plan policies. Generally, they seek only modest changes to policies, particularly to strengthen those concerning development restraint/environmental protection. New Forest District Council calls for a fundamental revision of the economic and environmental policies, a roll-forward/updating of the housing and transport policies and a few other changes to individual policies. The other respondents generally comment only on policies relating to their sphere of interest: some seek fundamental change, others only detailed amendments. Hampshire district planning officers are evenly divided between those calling for a complete overhaul of the current Structure Plan and those merely seeking modest changes. 2.3 The few organisations that express a view on how far ahead the roll forward/review should look are divided between time horizons of 2016 and 2021. Surrey County Council argues that 2016 is appropriate, while English Nature and the Hampshire Wildlife Trust call for a longer view to 2021. The majority of district planning officers express no opinion on the issue: the two who do are evenly split between 2016 and 2021. 2.4 Overall, therefore, no clear consensus emerges from stakeholders on the scale of change which should be made to the Structure Plan or how far ahead the roll forward/review should look. 3. Planning Green Paper 3.1 The Planning Green Paper published in December 2001 has major implications for the current development plan system, and thus roll forward/review of the Structure Plan. The Green Paper proposes the replacement of regional planning guidance, structure plans and local plans by regional spatial strategies, sub-regional strategies (in selected areas) and local development frameworks (at district level). These changes would require primary legislation. 3.2 The Green Paper urges local authorities, in the meantime, to continue preparation of revised/new plans under the existing arrangements. In light of the comments made on the Green Paper, a policy statement is expected this summer on the next steps. It is expected that the statement will also elaborate on the arrangements for plan-making in the interim period prior to introduction of the new development plans; an area not treated in any detail in the Green Paper. 3.3 The interim arrangements, the eventual revised development plan structure and the timetable for the changeover will have major implications for the format and timetable of the roll forward/review of the Hampshire County Structure Plan. 4. Regional Officers' Views 4.1 At a recent meeting with officers of the Government Office for the South East and the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA), the Hampshire strategic planning authorities were encouraged to `crack on' with the roll forward/review of the Structure Plan. It was felt to be in everyone's interest for the Hampshire authorities to show a positive approach to strategic plan-making. 4.2 There was encouragement, too, for the Hampshire authorities to take a longer look ahead. This reflects the practice in other counties preparing draft Structure Plans which look ahead to 2021 or 2025. SEERA's Director of Planning and Transport intends that the next Regional Planning Guidance should take a similar long-term view. 5. New National Parks 5.1 The process of designating two new National Parks is proceeding apace. The Countryside Agency has submitted a Designation Order for the New Forest National Park to the Secretary of State, while the Agency is considering the comments made during recent consultation on its draft proposals for the South Downs National Park. 5.2 The Countryside Agency suggests that the strategic planning of the New Forest National Park should be undertaken through a joint Structure Plan with the Hampshire strategic planning authorities. This would mean the Hampshire County Structure Plan becoming the joint responsibility of Hampshire County Council, Portsmouth City Council, Southampton City Council and the New Forest National Park Authority. In contrast, the Agency proposes that a Unitary Development Plan should be prepared for the South Downs National Park "working closely with adjoining authorities on strategic issues". This would mean that those parts of Hampshire within the Park would then not be covered by the Hampshire County Structure Plan. 6. Resources 6.1 The Structure Plan is the shared responsibility of the three current Hampshire strategic planning authorities: Hampshire County Council, Portsmouth City Council and Southampton City Council. The costs of consultancy work, publications and so on are shared, with the County Council bearing two-thirds of the costs and the two city councils bearing one-sixth each. The chief officers of the city councils aspire to contributing officer time in a comparable way but demands on available resources preclude this for the foreseeable future, with both placing their draft local plans on second deposit this year and holding public local plan inquiries in the first half of 2003. Staff resources in the County Council are also constrained by commitments to other projects, including the Dibden Bay Public Inquiry. A shortage of staff resources for the roll forward/review of the Structure Plan will inevitably hamper progress, and must be reflected in the timetable for the project. 7. Process Principles 7.1 The following principles are proposed to guide the preparation and format of the roll forward/review of the Structure Plan. (i) Time Horizon The roll forward/review should have a differential time horizon, taking a long-term view for overall strategy and major proposals, and a medium-term look ahead for more specific matters such as housing provision figures. This approach would give the necessary long term guidance for major new infrastructure and the broad pattern of future development, whilst avoiding being too specific, thus recognising the greater uncertainty which exists in longer term forecasting and planning.
(ii) A More Concise, Strategic Document The roll forward/review should lead to a document which is quite different in format to the current Structure Plan. It should more clearly articulate the vision for the future and the spatial strategy; confine itself to genuinely strategic issues, leaving local detail and development control style policies to local plans; and aim to be more concise than the current Structure Plan. To that end it should not repeat national and regional polices which are set out in Planning Policy Guidance Notes and Regional Planning Guidance, but merely refer to these as necessary. The document should also contain targets and indicators so that the success of the strategy and policies can be readily monitored.
(iii) A Strong Sub-Regional Component Within the context of the overarching plan area-wide vision and strategy in (i) above, there should be clearly articulated sub-regional strategies. South Hampshire and the Blackwater Valley/North Hampshire are obvious geographic units for sub-regional strategies and studies of these two areas are already underway. The two new National Parks are other logical geographic areas for sub-regional strategies. This would give the New Forest National Park Authority greater ownership of the joint document, while the sub-regional strategy for the South Downs National Park could be transposed to Part One of the Park Unitary Development Plan. Further thought needs to be given to arrangements for the remaining areas of Hampshire and discussion with the district councils concerned. A document which contains both a plan area-wide strategy and strategies for sub-regions would be sufficiently flexible to meet whatever development plan system is eventually settled on by Parliament - whether that be sub-regional strategies as envisaged in the Planning Green Paper or a county level strategic planning framework - and whatever final arrangements are introduced for strategic planning of the National Parks.
(iv) Integration with Other Plans Government guidance requires structure and local plans to be integrated with community strategies; the former are seen as the land use arms of the latter, and the means to implement aspects of the community strategies. The Local Strategic Partnerships which now exist, and others being forged in Hampshire, can potentially play an important role in helping to shape the revised/new Structure Plan. Similarly, the roll forward/review of the Structure Plan must be clearly integrated with the preparation of the new local transport plans due to be completed in 2006, and with the land management plans which local authorities are now statutorily required to prepare for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
(v) A Replacement Plan The principles above point to a radically different document from the current Structure Plan. It would be possible to proceed with an alteration to the current Plan with new chapters for selected topics in a format based on the principles above, but these would then need to sit alongside unaltered topic chapters carried forward from the existing Plan. The result would be an inconsistent, messy document. It is proposed, therefore, that the roll forward/review should lead to the preparation of a completely new replacement Plan. If a wholly new Plan is to be prepared to a new format, the content of it should be similarly bold and imaginative, and radical options explored during its preparation.
(vi) Progress as Far as Deposit Stage It is not yet certain what form the future development plan system will take, when any new system will come into effect, what the transition arrangements will be, nor the status of partially completed plan reviews. At the very minimum, the roll forward/review should aim to produce a document which will influence successor plans and the new Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East, which will supplant Regional Planning Guidance. To maximise that influence, and pending any further guidance from Government on transitional arrangements to the revised development plan system, the document should be a draft replacement Structure Plan (in the new format described above) because this will confer on it a degree of statutory status under the current planning legislation. To attain that status of being a `material consideration' it will need to have reached the stage of being a deposit draft plan. The year 2004 is the earliest time that any new development system would come into effect, so the aim should be to have prepared a deposit draft replacement Structure Plan by then.
8. Timetable and Next Steps 8.1 Preliminary technical work has already begun in line with the July 2001 Panel resolution. Seven task teams have been established, comprising city, borough and district council officers and key external stakeholders, to identify issues and options. It is proposed to hold a conference in September at which each task team will be asked to present its draft issues and options. This will enable discussion between the task teams and with other stakeholders prior to each team finalising a report setting out the issues and options it has identified. These would then be considered by this Panel and the constituent authorities. 8.2 To enhance the inclusivity of the process, it is intended to invite external organisations to prepare their own issues and options - if these are not covered in the task team reports - and submit them to the subsequent meeting of this Panel. They could then be incorporated into an overall issues and options document for public consultation during 2003. 8.3 In parallel with this technical work during this summer and early autumn, it is proposed to undertake two other tasks. The first is to devise a method and arrangements for undertaking the necessary sustainability assessment during each stage of plan preparation. The second task is to research and devise a public consultation/engagement strategy, again covering all stages of plan preparation. The proposals which emerge from these two investigations will be presented to a future meeting of this Panel. 8.4 The programme outlined in paragraphs 8.1 to 8.3 above is set out in calendar form in the attached appendix. For convenience, the calendar also shows the programme for the Blackwater Valley Study, the anticipated programmes for the Portsmouth and Southampton local plans and the timing of other related events, such as the expected publication of summary key statistics from the 2001 Census (the full Census data will follow later in 2003). 8.5 This programme and its component stages should be treated only as provisional. The policy statement which is expected this summer on the Government's intentions following consultation on the Planning Green Paper could either confirm the validity of the programme above or require some revision of it. The policy statement should enable a programme to be drawn up for the Structure Plan preparation process beyond the public consultation planned for early 2003. It is proposed that this Panel should meet again in September to consider the statement and its implications for the process and programme of the Structure Plan roll forward/review. | 
