Contact: Stuart Roberts, ext 6782

1. Summary

1.1 The following decisions are sought:

(i) That the County Council lobby for an amendment to the Planning Bill to secure a statutory role for county councils in sub-regional planning.

(ii) That the County Council seeks to maximise the role of county councils in sub-regional planning by pursuing a motion through the South East England Regional Assembly for its county councils to be employed by the South East England Regional Assembly in an agency role to undertake sub-regional planning.

(iii) That work continue with all speed on sub-regional strategies for the Blackwater valley/Basingstoke area and for South Hampshire, with a view to underpinning a new Structure Plan to be placed on deposit by April 2004 or as sub-regional strategies to underpin the new Regional Spatial Strategy.

(iv) That a role for the County Council in developing Local Development Frameworks not be pursued through seeking amendments to the Planning Bill, but only as a response to the wishes of Hampshire District Councils.

2. Reason

2.1 As explained below.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 To oppose the Bill outright - rejected as unlikely to succeed and likely to antagonise prospective partners in the new system.

4. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Decision Maker or a Member or Officer consulted - None.

5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - Not applicable.

6. Reason(s) for the Matter being dealt with if Urgent - Not applicable.

Approved by: .................................... Date: ..................................

Councillor T K Thornber

Contact: Stuart Roberts, ext 6782

1. Summary

1.1 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill was introduced in Parliament on 4 December 2003. It proposes radical changes to the planning system, including the diminution in the role of county councils. This report discusses the implications for Hampshire and how the County Council might maximise its role in the new system, both by lobbying for changes to the Bill and by exploring, with the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) and district councils, the ways in which the County Council might assist them, in preparing the regional and local level plans which the Government proposes should supplant the current system of Structure Plans and Local Plans. The report concludes by emphasising the need for the County Council to maintain its strategic planning capability, and to resource this adequately in 2003/04.

2. The Government's Proposals

2.1 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill proposes to replace the current system of Regional Planning Guidance (prepared by regional assemblies/Government offices), Structure Plans (prepared by strategic planning authorities, including Hampshire County Council) and Local Plans (prepared by district councils). It proposes a new two-tier system of plans:

(i) Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) prepared by regional planning bodies (regional chambers/assemblies), and

(ii) Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) prepared by district councils. There will need to be an LDF covering each district, but the Bill enables several district councils to prepare a joint LDF if they so wish.

2.2 Minerals and Waste Local Plans would be replaced by Minerals and Waste LDFs, but still prepared by county councils.

2.3 The content of plans will move from a traditional land use one to a more spatial approach, including investment and management policies, eg on congestion charging. More details of the form and content of these new style plans are set out in the attached appendix.

2.4 The Government believes the new system will be easier to understand, will enable plans to be produced and updated more quickly, and will allow more meaningful involvement by local communities. Structure plans are to be abolished because the Government believes that counties are no longer sensible units for plan preparation.

2.5 Documents published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to coincide with the Bill recognise the need for policy guidance, in some areas, below the regional level but above the level of individual districts. RSS will therefore have a strong sub-regional component, and will include specific sub-regional strategies for particular parts of the region concerned.

2.6 The Government envisages the following roles for county councils in respect of plan making:

(i) assisting their regional planning body (RPB) in preparing RSS if the RPB so desires;

(ii) assisting the RPB in providing advice and information to district councils on LDF preparation if the RPB so desires (in both cases, the RPB may reimburse the county council(s) for expenditure incurred); the Bill envisages Regional Assemblies being directly funded for work on RSS; and

(iii) participating in LDF preparation by entering into a joint commitment with one or more district councils.

2.7 Unitary councils, like Portsmouth and Southampton, and National Park Authorities will be able to play similar roles in addition to their direct responsibility for preparing a LDF for their area.

2.8 The commencement date for the new regime is expected to be April 2004 at the earliest.

3. Traditional Arrangements

3.1 The Government says it wants to move as soon as possible to the new system but equally it is anxious to maintain continuity in the plan system. So transitional arrangements for strategic planning are proposed:

(i) structure plans adopted at commencement date remain in force for three years (ie until at least April 2007) or until replaced by RSS if that is earlier;

(ii) any draft new/revised structure plan which reaches deposit stage before commencement date can proceed to adoption under current procedures;

(iii) once adopted, such plans remain in force for three years from the date of adoption or until replaced by RSS if that is earlier; and

(iv) where a draft new/revised structure plan does not reach that stage by commencement date, work on it will cease and be adapted to assist with preparation of RSS.

3.2 The Bill clarifies that only RSS (and not LDFs) can replace adopted structure plans. Broadly similar transitional arrangements are proposed for Local Plans, pending the production of LDFs.

4. Implications for Hampshire

4.1 The demise of structure plans would strip county councils of their plan-making role other than for minerals and waste. It would also diminish county councils' ability to influence the content of plans prepared by district councils and decisions on individual planning applications (other than minerals and waste) because the basis for this influence lies in structure plans.

4.2 Although the Bill provides for county councils to assist in the preparation of RSS and LDFs, both are at the discretion of the regional assembly and district councils respectively. Even where such requests for assistance are forthcoming, they will be to act as agents/advisors to other organisations who will make the decisions on plan content, with an uncertain role and influence for county councillors.

4.3 On 3 December - one day prior to the Bill's publication - a meeting of County, City and District Council Members discussed the implications of the expected legislation. The meeting was positive about the future role of Hampshire County Council in assisting with LDF preparation, particularly through providing specialist advice, undertaking work on matters which would be common to several LDFs, and in an arbitration/mediation role. District Councils also saw an important role for the County Council in representing and articulating Hampshire's interests at the regional level. In view of SEERA's limited number of planning staff, the meeting felt that the County Council would need to play a leading role in RSS preparation. Lastly, there was a recognition of the need to press on with preparing a planning strategy for Hampshire beyond 2011, although whether this would result in publication of a new Structure Plan or some other planning document was set to one side, pending the Government's announcement (subsequently made) on the transitional arrangements (discussed further below).

5. Options for the Future

5.1 Some planning matters are of greater than local significance and require consideration at a level above that of individual Local Plans/LDFs. Examples of these are the amount and distribution of new housing, major industrial and business sites, and major transport infrastructure. `Strategic planning' deals with these matters by setting a broad strategy, looking to the medium and longer term and covering fairly large areas - for example counties or other sub-regions which share common features.

5.2 The Government recognises the need for strategic planning, but sees the regional level providing the main strategic policies in future, instead of at county level. However, it expects that in most regions there would be a number of areas requiring a sub-regional planning strategy. In addition, the Government sees some matters, in particular the distribution of housing provision to districts, as needing to be addressed on a comprehensive basis at the sub-regional level and incorporated into the RSS.

5.3 The informal Members' meeting, referred to above, felt that for accountability, practical and political reasons, each district council would probably want to prepare a separate LDF for its area. This underscores the case for sub-regional strategies and obviates the possibility of joint LDFs performing that strategic planning role.

5.4 Members felt there was a case for sub-regional strategies where significant development or change was expected in future. On this basis, such strategies were thought to be needed for the Blackwater Valley/Thames corridor area (including parts of Berkshire and Surrey) and for South Hampshire (including Portsmouth and Southampton and possibly also Winchester). In the proposed New Forest and South Downs National Park there would, by definition, be only small-scale development/changes, while elsewhere in Hampshire it was felt that the main RSS would provide adequate strategic planning guidance.

5.5 It might be argued that a sub-regional strategy should be prepared for each county area, at least in the first round of RSS preparation, to utilise established county planning teams, existing methods of working and channels of communication. The Government's view, however, is that county areas are no longer the appropriate unit for plan preparation.

5.6 The arrangements proposed by the Government for the transition from structure and local plans to RSS and LDFs was explained above (paragraph 3.1 of this report). The Deputy Prime Minister has urged, and the Government Office for the South East (GOSE) recently reiterated the message, that local authorities already progressing reviews of existing structure and local plans continue to progress these forward in the interim until the legislation is enacted.

5.7 Work is well underway on the roll forward/review of the Hampshire County Structure Plan to establish a planning strategy beyond 2011. A conference of stakeholders had been arranged for 3 December 2002, with the aim of holding public consultation on issues and options in spring 2003 and then publication of a deposit draft new structure plan in 2004. The conference was postponed to allow the authorities to discuss the way ahead in light of the Bill.

5.8 The Government's proposed transitional arrangements offer the following options for the way ahead in Hampshire:

(i) to press on with preparing a new joint Structure Plan for Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton with commitment and resources to achieve deposit before commencement date (April 2004) and then continue thereafter to adoption. If adopted, say in 2005, this would mean the Plan remained in force until 2008 (or until replaced by RSS if that is earlier);

(ii) as (i) above but just for Hampshire County Council's area if the two cities do not wish to pursue this course; or

(iii) transfer to SEERA the work already done and offer to assist with preparation of the RSS, particularly the sub-regional components relating to Hampshire.

The Cabinet is not asked to decide between these options at this stage, since such a decision is best left until there has been exploration with all interested stakeholders and the issue of sub-regional planning role for the counties has been debated by SEERA (see below).

6. Actions for the County Council

6.1 It is recommended that the County Council pursue a twin-track response to the Bill: on the one hand lobbying for changes to the draft legislation to strengthen county councils' statutory role in the plan-making system, while simultaneously seeking to maximise Hampshire County Council's role and influence in the new system if enacted without amendment.

6.2 In relation to the first, the recent briefing meeting with Hampshire Members of Parliament can be followed by written communication and meetings at key stages in the Bill's progress through Parliament. Lord Hanningfield, the Leader of Essex County Council, may be able to assist in this regard, in the Bill's passage through the Lords. Common cause should also be forged with other organisations with similar concerns about the Bill in its current form.

6.3 The Government appears wedded to the overall thrust of its proposals, but a sound case could be made for county councils preparing the core strategy and policies for the LDFs in their area, at least in regions where a two-tier system of local government will remain for the foreseeable future.

6.4 This would yield economies of scale (one set of core policies instead of 13 separate ones in Hampshire) and speed up plan production by relieving under-resourced district council forward planning teams of one part of their LDF (one Hampshire district council team consists of just one person). It would also enable district councils to focus on the preparation of the Action Plans component of the LDF, which will contain site-specific policies and proposals for areas of change or conservation (see appendix). However, it will be for district councils to decide whether they wish to commission the County Council to undertake this role if this legislative change is not accepted, and therefore it may be prudent not to pursue such a change unless it has wide support at district council level.

6.5 Other legislative changes should be pursued, to make it a statutory requirement for regional assemblies to utilise county councils in the production of sub-regional strategies, for example.

6.6 In parallel, there are opportunities to be seized to make the most of the Bill if enacted in its current form. A meeting is being arranged with officers of SEERA and GOSE to explore their thinking on how county councils might assist with RSS preparation, and subsequent implementation and monitoring, in the South East Region.

6.7 This could be purely in the preparation of sub-regional strategies, or could see the County Council taking the lead role on a region-wide basis, for a topic in which it has particular expertise. The meeting will also discuss the merits of the alternative options (outlined in paragraph 5.8 above) for the transitional period. Every effort should be made to persuade SEERA of the benefits of making maximum use of the County Council because of its expertise, local knowledge, networks of contacts and democratic accountability to the Hampshire community.

7. Budgetary Implications

7.1 All the options outlined above seek to maximise the County Council's influence over regional and district levels within the new plan system. If that is to be achieved, the authority needs to maintain its strategic planning capability, at least until the final shape of the legislation is known and there is a definitive view from SEERA and Hampshire district councils on the role they wish the County Council to play in their plan preparation.

7.2 The Government has stated repeatedly that it wishes authorities to carry on with plans and reviews already underway in order to avoid a hiatus in plan production. Hampshire district council officers have echoed this in respect of the work already underway on preparing a planning strategy for Hampshire beyond 2011. If these are to be responded to positively, the budget for this work needs to continue. In any event, should the counties lose their strategic planning capability, SEERA is likely to have to increase the levy on its member authorities to enlarge its capacity to undertake sub-regional planning, if this is not adequately funded by direct Government grant.

7661/SR

APPENDIX

THE NEW PLANS AND STRATEGIES PROPOSED BY GOVERNMENT

Regional Spatial Strategies

The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) will provide the strategic spatial framework within which Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) and Local Transport Plans can be prepared. The RSS will look 15 to 20 years ahead. It should have an integrated, strategic approach with regional and sub-regional priorities for housing, together with priorities for environmental protection and improvement, transport, other infrastructure, economic development, agriculture, minerals and waste treatment and disposal. Sub-regional issues should be fully integrated into the regional strategy making process, so each RSS will have strong sub-regional elements.

Sub-Regional Strategies

In some areas there may be a need for separate sub-regional strategies; some may cut across regional boundaries. But sub-regional issues in general, including the distribution of housing provision figures down to district level, will be dealt with in sub-regional sections of the RSS. In this way it will be possible to deal with issues such as the broad spatial balance between the provision of new housing and economic development as part of a sub-region that makes sense, rather than related to historic county boundaries. This sub-regional detail will provide the bridge between the more general regional policies and the LDFs. It is in the preparation of the sub-regional elements of the RSS that the Government sees a continuing need for input from the county councils.

Local Development Frameworks

There will be a single tier of LDFs in place of structure/local plans and unitary development plans. The unitary or district local planning authority will be responsible for their preparation. Where districts wish to work together to produce a joint LDF (for good planning reasons or to pool resources) and/or to produce their LDF jointly with the county council concerned, they will be able to do so. County councils will retain responsibility for minerals and waste planning, and will prepare minerals and waste development frameworks on these topics for their areas, but, again, with the ability to agree to prepare these jointly with other authorities.

The LDF will comprise a folder of documents for delivering the spatial strategy for the area, consisting of:

(i) a core strategy: the core policies for delivering the spatial strategy and vision for the area. The policies should be location-specific rather than site-specific and may need to be illustrated by a key diagram;

(ii) a proposals section, with a proposals map: this will cover site specific policies and proposals which cannot be covered in area action plans and should be shown on a proposals map. The map will show existing and revised designations for areas of land, such as conservation areas, defining sites for particular developments or land uses and the areas to which specified policies apply; and

(iii) area action plans for key areas of change or conservation: containing detailed site-specific policies, proposals or guidance for areas of change or conservation. Many of these will be statutory and subject to independent testing. Others might be non-statutory, such as site development briefs.

The three elements of the LDF can be prepared together or separately.