Date: 2 April 2003 Item 6 Report by: The Hampshire Director of Environment, Portsmouth City Planning Officer and Southampton Executive Director of Development and Sustainability FUTURE ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE STRATEGIC PLANNING OF HAMPSHIRE, PORTSMOUTH AND SOUTHAMPTON
Written by: Stuart Roberts, tel 01962 846782 Purpose and Summary: The seven Task Teams established to research the issues and options for the roll forward/review of the Hampshire County Structure Plan completed their reports last year. Their findings were to be discussed at a stakeholders' conference in December 2002, but this was postponed in the light of Government proposals to radically change the development plan framework. Those proposals - set out in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill - are to replace regional planning guidance, structure plans and local plans by regional spatial strategies (prepared by regional planning bodies) and local development frameworks (prepared by district councils). In light of these changes, it is neither appropriate nor feasible to progress the roll forward/review of the Hampshire County Structure Plan. Instead, the strategic planning authorities should assist the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) by preparing sub-regional strategies for South Hampshire and the Blackwater Valley, and by Hampshire County Council undertaking technical work relating to the rest of Hampshire to inform the preparation of the new Regional Spatial Strategy. Discussions should also take place with the Hampshire local planning authorities on how Hampshire County Council, Portsmouth City Council and Southampton City Council can assist with technical work to inform the preparation of District Local Development Frameworks. RECOMMENDATION: That Hampshire County Council, Portsmouth City Council and Southampton City Council be recommended to: (i) thank the task team members for their valuable contribution to the preparation of new strategic plans for Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton; (ii) cease work on the roll forward/review of the Hampshire County Structure Plan; (iii) prepare, in conjunction with the South East England Regional Assembly, project briefs for sub-regional strategies for South Hampshire and the Blackwater Valley; (iv) explore with the South East England Regional Assembly whether sub-regional strategies are needed, as part of the proposed Regional Spatial Strategy, for any areas which cross the Hampshire boundary; and (v) discuss with the Hampshire local planning authorities the topics on which joint technical work could be undertaken to inform the preparation of Local Development Frameworks.
1. Roll Forward/Review of the Structure Plan 1.1 At its meeting on 25 June 2002, this Panel noted that seven task teams had been established to identify the issues and options for the roll forward/review of the Hampshire County Structure Plan. The Panel endorsed a provisional programme for the future work (minute 5.1 refers) which included a stakeholders' conference in autumn 2002 leading public consultation on issues and options in spring 2003. 2. Task Teams' Reports 2.1 A task team was established for each of the following topics: economy; housing; transport and information communication technology (ICT) change; flood risk and implications of climate change; land and natural resources; urban areas; and Rural Hampshire and market towns. Each task team comprised a range of County, City and District Council officers and representatives of key external organisations. 2.2 Each team has produced a short report which focuses on strategic issues and options, and a much longer document which sets out its full research findings. The task teams' work represents a substantial contribution towards the preparation of new strategic plans for Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton. The members of the task teams are to be thanked for their ideas and assistance. 2.3 It is not proposed that the task team reports should be published; rather that they should be used as an input to the preparation of sub-regional strategies and to technical work for the Regional Spatial Strategy. 3. Stakeholders' Conference 3.1 Arrangements were made for the stakeholders' conference to be held in Southampton on 3 December 2002, at which the task team reports would be the focus for discussion. However, the imminent publication of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, with its proposals to radically change the development plan framework, led the strategic planning authorities to postpone the conference. The Government's intentions were articulated in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill published on 4 December 2002. 4. Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill 4.1 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill proposes to replace the current system of Regional Planning Guidance, Structure Plans and Local Plans with a new two-tier system of development 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 two or more district councils to prepare a joint LDF if they so wish.
4.2 Minerals and Waste Local Plans would be replace by Minerals and Waste LDFs, but still prepared by County/Unitary Councils. 4.3 The Bill itself is not specific on the content of RSS, but complementary documents published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 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 may include specific sub-regional strategies for particular parts of the region concerned. These sub-regional strategies will not be free-standing documents but will be part of the RSS. 4.4 The Government envisages that `upper tier' authorities (County Councils, Unitary Councils and National Park Authorities) will be able to assist the regional planning body in preparing RSS and assist District Councils in preparing LDFs, although in both cases this will be at the discretion of the plan-making authority. 4.5 The Government says it wants to move as quickly as possible to the new system, but is equally anxious to maintain continuity in plan making. Therefore it has proposed transitional arrangements between the current and new regimes. In relation to the Hampshire County Structure Plan, these transitional arrangements would mean that: (i) the adopted Structure Plan would remain in force until April 2007 or until superseded by the new RSS if that is earlier; and (ii) if the roll forward/review of the Structure Plan could be progressed to the deposit stage by April 2004, it could proceed on to adoption under current procedures. It would then remain in force for three years from the date of adoption or until replaced by RSS if that is earlier.
5. Implications of the Bill for Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton 5.1 On 3 December a meeting of County, City and District Council Members discussed the implications of the legislation. The meeting was positive about the future role of the strategic planning authorities in assisting with LDF preparation, particularly through providing specialist advice and participating in work on matters which would be common to several LDFs. 5.2 District Council representatives at the meeting also saw an important role for the strategic planning authorities in representing and articulating Hampshire's interests at the regional level. In view of SEERA's limited number of planning staff, the meeting's view was that the strategic planning authorities would need to play a leading role in RSS preparation. 5.3 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 area (encompassing parts of Hampshire, Berkshire and Surrey) and for South Hampshire (including Portsmouth and Southampton and possibly also embracing Winchester). In the proposed New Forest and South Downs National Parks there would, by definition, only be small-scale development/changes, while elsewhere in Hampshire it was felt that the main RSS would provide adequate strategic planning guidance. 5.4 The strategic planning authorities' chief officers have discussed this emerging thinking with SEERA and GOSE officers. There was a consensus that sub-regional strategies were only required for selected parts of the region, and that south Hampshire and the Blackwater Valley were two areas for which such strategies may be needed. The studies nearing completion for those two areas (which will be presented to the next meeting of this Panel) provide the foundation for preparing sub-regional strategies. It was recognised that further thought needs to be given to the geographical extent of the study area as part of the preparation of a project brief, rather than unquestioningly perpetuating the current boundaries of the sub-regional studies. Consideration also needs to be given to whether any areas on the fringes of Hampshire should be part of a sub-regional strategy which crosses the county boundary; examples being whether the New Milton area should be covered by a sub-regional strategy based on Poole/Bournemouth/Christchurch, and whether Basingstoke should be part of a sub-regional strategy for the Thames Valley or the sub-regional strategy for the Blackwater Valley. 5.5 SEERA officers saw the strategic planning authorities continuing to lead the work on the sub-regional strategies in the initial stages. They also wanted the strategic planning authorities to undertake technical work for the remainder of Hampshire to inform the main RSS. This work would, of course, need to be progressed with the involvement of the local planning authorities. 5.6 Further discussions are planned on these matters, with a view to project briefs for the preparation of the sub-regional strategies being presented to an early future meeting of this Panel. The preparation of these sub-regional strategies needs to be progressed fairly quickly, in order to fit in with the timetable set by the Government of a draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East being prepared by the end of 2004. 5.7 The chief officers of Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Councils believe that, in light of the proposed changes to the development plan framework, it is not appropriate to progress any further with the roll forward/review of the Hampshire County Structure Plan. Given the current stage reached, it is, in any event, not feasible to prepare a deposit draft revised/new Structure Plan by April 2004 - the deadline in the Government's transitional arrangements. Instead, it is proposed to prepare draft sub-regional strategies for South Hampshire and the Blackwater Valley and to undertake technical work relating to the remainder of Hampshire to inform the main RSS. SEERA officers have supported this approach. In the case of the Blackwater Valley (and any other cross-county boundary sub-regional strategies) this depends on the involvement of the adjoining strategic planning authorities. 6. The Way Ahead 6.1 In summary, the way forward is therefore to: (i) cease work on the roll forward/review of the Hampshire Structure Plan and utilise the work already done, including the task teams' reports as valuable inputs to the preparation of the Regional Spatial Strategy and sub-regional strategies; (ii) complete the South Hampshire Study and Blackwater Valley Study for presentation to the next meeting of this Panel; (iii) prepare, in conjunction with SEERA and the other planning authorities, project briefs for the preparation of sub-regional strategies for south Hampshire and the Blackwater Valley; (iv) undertake technical work for the rest of Hampshire to inform the main Regional Spatial Strategy; (v) explore with SEERA whether sub-regional strategies are needed for any areas which cross the Hampshire boundary; and (vi) discuss with the Hampshire local planning authorities the topics on which joint technical work could be undertaken to inform the preparation of District Local Development Frameworks.
| 
