Date: 2 April 2003 Item 11 Report by: Hampshire Director of Environment, Portsmouth City Planning Officer and Southampton Executive Director of Development and Sustainability HAMPSHIRE, PORTSMOUTH AND SOUTHAMPTON MINERALS AND WASTE LOCAL PLAN REVIEW
Written by: Tony Cook tel 01962 846730 Purpose and Summary: This report considers the way forward in preparing Mineral and Waste Development Frameworks (MWDFs) as envisaged in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, instead of continuing the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review (HPSMWLPR). The County Council favours a joint MWDF, subject to agreement on funding with the two Cities. The City Councils have yet to formally consider their position. The Panel is recommended, subject to the views of the Government Office for the South East (GOSE), to endorse the approach of preparing a joint MWDF and authorise officers to draw up a funding agreement. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) That, subject to the City Councils considering the views of the Government Office for the South East on options for Mineral and Waste Development Frameworks, the preparation of a joint integrated Hampshire (including Portsmouth and Southampton) Minerals and Waste Development Framework be endorsed. 2) That, following the decision on Mineral and Waste Development Frameworks in Recommendation 1, officers be authorised to draw up a funding agreement based on one of the options as set out in paragraph 9 of this report. 1. Progress on the HPSMWLPR was last reported to the Panel on 12 November 2002. It was envisaged that the review of the minerals section of the plan would be placed on First Deposit in May 2003. 2. As indicated in the enclosed report to the County Council's Executive Member for Environment, the County Council has reconsidered the approach to the HPSMWLPR especially in light of comments arising through the stakeholder dialogue on the minerals review and the implications of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. 3. The County Council considers that a review of waste policies should now be urgently progressed and an integrated minerals and waste new-style Plan be prepared, subject to agreement of joint funding by the two cities of Portsmouth and Southampton. The City Councils have yet to formally consider their position. 4. A single MWDF could be prepared jointly by the three authorities. This could include a core strategy, development control policies and spatial policies. As a variation to this option, it is currently being investigated by GOSE whether the Cities could include minerals and waste spatial policies in their Local Development Frameworks. 5. Other options for the three authorities to prepare minerals and waste policies would be either for each authority to prepare a separate MWDF or for the County Council and one Unitary Council to prepare a joint MWDF with the other Unitary Council preparing its own MWDF. 6. Joint working for a single MWDF might involve additional process time compared to the other options. On the other hand, the options referred to in paragraph 5 above involve duplication of work and expenditure especially on technical studies, spatial analysis, preparation of documents, consultations and inquiry costs. It is likely that the preparation of three separate MWDFs would be the most expensive option overall. 7. Previously, funding of the HPSMWLPR has been on the basis of direct costs being split generally in the proportions agreed by the former Planning and Transportation Committee on 24 January 2000 in the form of Hampshire County Council - 75%, Portsmouth City Council - 11.25% and Southampton City Council - 13.75%. Staff costs have been borne by the relevant employing authority. 8. Officers' advice is that there is merit in the preparation of a joint integrated MWDF covering all three areas. This recognises that minerals and waste planning issues in Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton are closely interrelated and are complementary in the provision of facilities. Furthermore, the three authorities work together as partners in Project Integra and similarly with the Hampshire Natural Resources Initiative. However, the County Council's decision is subject to the agreement of joint funding by the two Cities of Portsmouth and Southampton. Portsmouth City Council is investigating options on the preparation of MWDFs with GOSE. The City Council officers emphasise the need to consider the mechanisms between Development Frameworks for allocating specific sites and any involvement in a stakeholder dialogue. 9. Following on from a decision on the preparation of MWDFs, a funding agreement should be drawn up. On the basis of a joint MWDF, if the previous formula is applied to the total costs shown in the Project Report, the breakdown of costs would be: in 2003/04 Hampshire County Council £138,700, Portsmouth City Council £20,900 and Southampton City Council £25,400; and in 2004/05 Hampshire County Council £35,200, Portsmouth City Council £5,300 and Southampton City Council £6,500. However, an alternative option could be for the stakeholder dialogue to be carried out separately by the three authorities, with the remaining technical studies and appraisals, document publishing and advertising, etc being borne jointly on the previous formula. This would mean that the jointly-funded items would be split as: in 2003/04 Hampshire County Council £48,750, Portsmouth City Council £7,350 and Southampton City Council £8,900; and in 2004/05 Hampshire County Council £30,000, Portsmouth City Council £4,500 and Southampton City Council £5,500. | 
