APPENDIX

Contact: Tony Cook, ext 6730

1. Summary

1.1 The following decisions are sought:

(i) That, subject to agreement of joint funding by the two cities of Portsmouth and Southampton, the preparation of an integrated Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework be approved and that the Project Brief be agreed as the work necessary to be undertaken up to Deposit stage.

(ii) That a Statement of Community Involvement be prepared which incorporates in-depth stakeholder dialogue and wide ranging public participation through consultation on a waste issues report and links with local strategic partnerships.

(iii) That, subject to testing the market viability of the proposal, approval be given to a negotiated tender being agreed with Entec/Alison Millward Associates to carry out the stakeholder dialogue on waste issues, provided it is within the budget provision.

(iv) That officers continue discussions with Portsmouth and Southampton City Councils, the Government Office for the South East and the South East England Regional Assembly on the new approach.

1.2 The attached report will also be considered by the Environment Policy Review Committee on 5 March 2003 and any views from the Committee will be reported orally at the meeting. It is intended to include consideration of these proposals at the next meeting of the Strategic Planning Joint Advisory Panel (JAP) on 2 April 2003.

2. Reason

2.1 To reconsider the approach to the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review in the light of comments made during the stakeholder dialogue process and the implications of the proposed Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 To continue with the current process. Rejected because it would be extremely difficult to integrate minerals and waste policies as they would be following different procedures as new legislation would apply to the latter and the adoption of waste policies would be delayed.

3.2 To undertake an integrated Review using current procedures. Rejected because this could not be achieved within the timeframe being set by the new legislation and it would involve abortive work and costs.

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 K B Estlin

7788/TC

Contact: Tony Cook, ext 6730

1. Summary

1.1 This report considers the current progress with the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review (HPSMWLPR) and examines the implications of the proposed Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. The report seeks agreement to prepare an integrated minerals and waste plan under the format of the new procedures as envisaged in the Bill. It is proposed that the attached Project Brief on the preparation of the new plan is endorsed.

2. Current Progress on Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review

2.1 The Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (HPSMWLP) was adopted by the three Councils on 17 December 1998. As the Plan only covered the period up to the end of 2001, it was decided to review the Plan to cover the period up to 2011. This was to be carried out as two alterations to the Plan - firstly, dealing with the minerals part of the Plan and secondly, the waste sections. The costs of the review were to be divided between the three authorities.

2.2 The three authorities resolved to take a pro-active approach to the review by deciding to consult stakeholders at an early stage in the HPSMWLPR process. Entec with Alison Millward Associates were appointed to design and facilitate a stakeholder dialogue process. The process started in June 2001 and an issues paper was published for public consultation in 2002. The process output will provide guidance for officers on reviewing minerals policies. During the whole exercise the national and regional planning context for waste planning has changed. These changes have been reflected in many of the comments from the stakeholder dialogue that waste issues urgently need an up-to-date policy context.

2.3 The work on the minerals aspects of the review has not been completed. In particular, there is still an ongoing consultation on the current review of Planning Policy Guidance concerning aggregate provision in England (MPG6) which will ultimately lead to a new sub-regional apportionment of the sand and gravel resources that will need to be provided by Hampshire. In addition, a mineral resources study is currently under way.

3. New Procedures under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

3.1 New planning legislation is now before Parliament and it is anticipated that a new planning regime will commence in the spring of 2004. This will impact on the current programme for the review. The new arrangements will scrap the current form of plans and introduce Minerals and Waste Development Frameworks (MWDFs) that will comprise a number of focussed and simpler Local Development Documents (LDDs) that can be produced in series and under simpler procedures.

3.2 It is proposed that county planning authorities prepare a Minerals and Waste Development Scheme which will set out the LDDs to be produced on mineral and waste matters. Other changes involve plans only having one deposit stage and that the Inspector's report will be binding on the mineral and waste planning authority.

4. Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework

4.1 The attached Project Report explains why the HPSMWLPR should be adapted to comply with the new legislation - as proposed - and that a Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework (HMWDF) be prepared.

4.2 There is realistically no alternative to adapting the HPSMWLPR to the proposed new arrangements as set out in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. The continuation of the current programme would not deliver an up-to-date, integrated minerals and waste policy framework. Indeed, it would be impossible to bring forward a review on waste within the remaining window of opportunity for the existing procedures. On the other hand there are positive advantages in switching to the new arrangements, as it will produce an integrated policy framework more quickly and in a more readily accessible format. Moreover, the Government is already advising that planning authorities start making the change.

4.3 It is envisaged that the HMWDF will comprise:

(i) a core strategy - the land use, environmental and natural resource objectives and the strategy and principles for minerals and waste management developments;

(ii) a spatial strategy - indicating areas where different types of development/management will be proposed (or resisted);

(iii) a proposals map; and

(iv) Area Action Plans identifying locations (as appropriate) for proposals for minerals and waste.

4.4 The extent of spatial proposals will depend on the outcome of technical work in the preparation of the HMWDF. It is envisaged that some Area Action Plans will be included in the deposit plan. Introducing many new sites at the early stage of HMWDF preparation would slow the process at the expense of quickly delivering a planning framework to deal with emerging planning applications and initiatives. However, in due course more site specific documents in the form of additional Action Plans or supplementary planning guidance will be produced. The new legislation allows planning authorities to divide the work thus.

4.5 The preparation of the HMWDF will need to take into account the work being undertaken by the Hampshire Natural Resources Initiative. In addition, the HMWDF will need to be achieved with effective community participation in developing the policies. The relationship with local strategic partnerships and community strategies will be a key element of the work.

4.6 The Project Report sets out an indicative timetable for completing the HMWDF. The charts attached to the Project Report show in more detail the work programme until Deposit of a draft HMWDF in July 2004. Although this will be untested policy it will become a material consideration in taking mineral and waste planning decisions.

4.7 This timetable is predicated, however, on the following assumptions:

(i) immediate start to the public involvement process;

(ii) no unforeseen difficulties arising from the impending release of details of the new legislation;

(iii) minimising the introduction of `new' site specific proposals at the current stage;

(iv) unscheduled issues arising from the public involvement process and/or major policy shifts from Government; and

(v) the commitment of the proposed budget and staff resources as shown in the Project Brief.

4.8 It is proposed that the current consultants who have steered the stakeholder dialogue on the minerals review be engaged to undertake the same process on waste issues. This will allow continuity in approach and avoid unnecessary delays. It is also proposed that the Sustainability Appraisal/ Strategic Environmental Assessment, as will shortly be required by Regulations, is carried out with additional work by consultants.

4.9 Following approval of the Project Brief there will be the need for separate authorisation by Portsmouth and Southampton City Councils. A shadow Minerals and Waste Development Scheme will then need to be considered by the three authorities. The apportionment of costs between the Councils will also need to be formally endorsed. At the same time there will be full consultations with numerous bodies, including the Government Office for the South East and the South East England Regional Assembly.

Recommendation

That the Executive Member for Environment be advised that this Committee:

(i) supports the preparation of an integrated Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework and endorses the Project Brief as the work to be undertaken up to Deposit stage;

(ii) supports the approach to involve the community in the preparation of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework; and

(iii) supports the further discussion of this approach with Portsmouth and Southampton City Councils, the Government Office for the South East and the South East England Regional Assembly.

7787/TC